Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:224 (26 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7408.224
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOREllershaw and Ward describe how access to good palliative care should be available to all patients who are dying.1 We agree that equity of access is crucially important but disagree with the implied definition of what a good death is.
The authors imply that a good death is one that is pain free, dignified,
and one in which active resuscitation never occurs. If this is what the
patient has requested, either verbally or through an advance directive, then
this would be appropriate. However, we think that death can at times be unfair
and premature and that a calm good death may not be what such a patient
wishes. Such patients may wish to "rage against the dying of the
light,"2 may
never accept their end calmly, and may not wish to be pain free. The concept
of a patient not wishing to be pain free and peaceful is
June Jones, lecturer in biomedical ethics
j.jones.1@bham.ac.uk
Derek Willis, lecturer in primary care
Department of Primary Care, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT