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

Letter

"Right to die"

Changing "right" to "duty" may focus debate

EDITOR—The predictable outcry over Grayling's editorial on the "right to die" has added little to an emotive debate.¹ The concept of a right to die is clearly in accordance with the current obsession with autonomy in vogue in UK medical ethics.

Responses restating Christian objections to any perceived undermining of the right to life, and objections from doctors about the lack of moral difference between omission and commission being secondary to effects on the moral agenda, are not fundamental to the issue—though both are views I share.

I believe that a more rigorous ethical refutation is found in moral argument against our rights based culture. Replacement of the term "right" by the term "duty" focuses the debate. Once the initial reactionary problems are explored, as in Hardwig's article,² we can, in accordance with our interdependent human society, enable everybody to prepare for the best death that we can achieve with the appropriate palliative care support.

Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH joethebaptist{at}doctors.org.uk

---

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Grayling AG. "Right to die." BMJ 2005;330: 799. (9 April.)[Free Full Text]
2. Hardwig J. Is there a duty to die? Hastings Center Report 2997;27(2):34-42. http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/dutydie.htm (accessed 1 June 2005).

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

Related Article

"Right to die"

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