British Medical Association Rejects Assisted Suicide
In preparation for trying to convince the House of Lords to legalize assisted suicide, a small rump group in the BMA pulled a ploy that got the organization on record as neutral to legalizing PAS. But now the membership has weighed in and come out strongly against legalization. With the BMA now firmly opposed to assisted suicide, virtually all medical associations in the world, other then the Dutch and a few other ethical renegades, agree that killing is not a medical treatment. Great news that should put the stake to the heart of the Joffe Bill in the UK.
That's two pieces of great news since I began my holiday. I should go on vacation more often.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:54 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
People DO "own" their lives if they want to take their own lives. Doctors are NOT supposed to be in the business of killing people but in the practice of healing.
Why don't you get it? This has NOTHING to do with some nutball notion of "liberty."
Winston, do you realize what an obnoxious jerk you've unfailingly been during your entire time on this blog? That's twice now in as many days that you've wished harm on Mr. Smith. And *we* are the uncompassionate ones?
Try a little more civility from now on, if for no other reason that it might encourage people to actually take you seriously.
Winston Jen: "If I wish harm on Mr. Smith, it is to teach him some empathy. He doesn't seem to have suffered as much as a paper cut in his life. He probably wanted to do this, too:" [all-too-predictable Hitler reference]
Typical. Thanks for further proving my point about your attitude, and yet again demonstrating your immaturity. If you want some credibility around here, stop giving such ridiculous and hateful responses.
Winston Jen: "I found it a rather effective way to display Wesley's true motives."
It certainly was very effective at revealing something, but it wasn't about Wesley!
Looking back on past week or so of discussion on the blog, I see two problematic tendencies that are also common in the debate at large:
1) Arguments tend to remain at an abstract ethical level rather than a more practical one.
2) Patients are envisioned as completely free agents floating in a social vacuum, which is hopelessly unrealistic.
Both of these problems arise from not putting the issue in its actual, concrete, real-world context. In reality, a patient is entangled in a web of medical, material, familial, societal, etc. threads that each have to be considered, both in terms of their effects on the patient and how all of these would be altered by legalization. This isn't done nearly enough. The only exceptions I've seen are, among supporters, utilitarian bean-counters who emphasize the expense of patients, and among opponents, disability activists who know the context firsthand.
The latter is, of course, the group to which I belong, and exactly why I keep returning to these specifics in my comments. Quite likely for every single other person here, end-of-life issues are a hypothetical for some vague distant future, and imagination the only way of guessing what it means to be a patient in such a position. For me it is an everyday reality, and through my own direct experience I see many reasons to fear what legalization may mean for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
So to bring this back to the nature of the debate in these comments: Yes, let's not only broaden it to consider societal responsibility (as BAP suggests) but also the wider context that I mentioned above. Here's my contribution to get things started:
* It can be argued that euthanasia legalization is primarily an extension of physicians' powers and only secondarily an expansion of patients' options. From this angle, what would it mean for physicians to have a free hand in terminating patients' lives? Consider both the impact on the nature of the profession and on the doctor-patient relationship.
"Wesley said that we have a duty to live so the people like him can be compassionate and look good."
Come on, Winston, that's a blatant misrepresentation and you certainly know it. Wesley never says suffering is inherently good and must be embraced for the sake of other peoples' image. What you're referring to is his pointing out that helping the sick and dying can and should bring out the best in people, and this is what should be cultivated rather than seeing the sickly as burdens that should be dispensed with. But I don't expect you to see the latter point because, again, you keep focusing on the patient in isolation and ignoring the surrounding context.
"Too bad it's already happening now, with no regulations, no control, and very, VERY few prosecutions:"
Yes, and if incidents go unprosecuted while it is still *illegal*, what on earth makes you think things will get any better when it's legal? Your response is irrelevant to my question anyway, since I was asking what the impact is and will be on the medical profession -- an issue that you seem strangely uninterested in through all these discussions.
"... in the Netherlands, where there is more emphasis on the careful regulation and monitoring of medical end-of-life decision-making."
Yes, and abuse still exists there regardless, such as patients being euthanized based on doctors' and/or others'. judgment rather than the patient's consent, and the creeping expansion of "eligible" groups to include the non-terminally ill and disabled infants. All the assurances that legalization will remain limited in scope and be carefully regulated ring hollow given such real-world experiences.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home