BMJ  2005;330:1388 (11 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7504.1388

Letter

"Right to die"

Legal view of right to life and death could threaten philosophy of palliative care

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Grayling claims that the "right to life" means quite a rich life; withholding treatment with death as the result and giving treatment that causes death are indistinguishable; and death is the ultimate analgesic.¹ Grayling also implies that the double effect is widely abused.

The EC Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms protects against intentional deprivation of life.² Quality of life is not mentioned, and terminating a life at a person's request is clearly not permitted. "Right to life" is perhaps a "right not to be killed," in medicine, generally relating to survival and not assisted death. However, some interpret it as giving patients a right to cardiopulmonary resuscitation regardless of the clinical circumstances³; extrapolation to all potential interventions at the life-death interface could have disastrous consequences for the medical profession.

Patients obviously can wish for their life to be terminated without needing to . . . [Full text of this article]

Katharine House Hospice, Adderbury, Oxfordshire OX17 3NL dr.chambers.info

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

"Right to die"

A C Grayling
BMJ 2005 330: 799. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Doctors should not discuss resuscitation with terminally ill patients: AGAINST

Irene J Higginson
BMJ 2003 327: 615-616. [Extract] [Full Text]