World Medical Association isolates Netherlands on euthanasia
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7366.675 (Published 28 September 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:675
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
There are pros and cons to every issue and "euthanasia" is one such
issues. No single law can justify all its intricacies-medical, moral,
social etc. It has to be examined on a case by case basis. Finally, No
single doctor can be entrusted with the task of making such decisions
alone. A group, board, panel or organization should be entrusted with the
duty of assessing each case and circumstances.
As Dr. Prasad has written - a doctor should only be seen as a healer.
A doctor symbolizes hope, cure, faith, belief, and remedy and that’s how
it should remain. Even when there are no answers.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Dr. Prasad,
I don't think Doctors are 'Healers or killers', your letter struck me
as an unscientific response for a medical professional. Doctors have
elevated themselves to think that since they can diagnose the medical
quality of someones life, they should then be the ones to decide to end
it. Why not give sentencing over to the police then, or whether to scrap a
car to the garage. Clearly it is the encumbents responsibility to decide
when his own quality of life is over. Maybe we need a jury of 11,
'Ordinary men', to help, when a Doctor doesn't know what to do, or feels
he can't allow it! No doubt nurses are burdenned with decisions that
'Professionals', can't deal with on their own. If the jury decisions were
paid out of Dr. Prasad's salary, how many times before he would change his
mind, would be my question?
Should a medical professional prevent a disturbed person from hurting
himself, probably most people would agree. Should he waste valuable
medical and legal recources endlessly trying, probably most people would
disagree. Should he spend his life in futile medical operations when he
does not know if the person wishes it - clearly not..Should he help
someone in need of death, when all quality is lost, and the person wills
euthanasia..Not a hard decision, but hard to implement if society is
against him..I hope my doctor would respect my wishes and help me in my
hour of need just as he helped me at midnight when my child was in pain.
I believe that those who propose keeping people allive against their
will should be the ones to pay for the privilege. Then the rest of us may
get on with funding reserch into cancer etc., and improving quality of
life. Go on someone will find a tear jerking exception to provoke another
incorrect rule like the international disaproval against the Netherlands.
I notice it's the most advanced societies who have the courage to
publicly go against old fashioned predudices, and publicly condone what
has been privately done for centuries. Love you all - just a discussion
folks...
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I fully agree with the views of Dr. Michael Irwin and the first
sentence of Dr. Prasad in their responses.
What matters is the quality of life and not longivity.
To keep someone alive when he/she wants to 'go' after a full life and
the present life full of pain is indeed cruel.
We do , of course, need safeguards which are provided by the
Netherlands med. association.
We need a response from both the brain and the heart.
Dinkar D. Palande
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir
Death is inevitable.Doctors are meant to help the patients
to live a longer and pain free life.It is our shortcomings that we can not
mitigate the misery of some of our patients and they prefer to die .We
have not been able to discover any effective antibiotic in the past 20-30
years.We are on the verge of losing war with microbes.Instead of
increasing the life span of people,we are making their clones. Ethanasia
and cloning etc are unethical and must be condemned.
Thanks.
Dr C S Prasad MD MRCP [UK]
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor -
Tony Sheldon is incorrect, in this report, to write "The Netherlands (is) the only country where national laws have been passed decriminalising mercy killing under certain conditions".
In Switzerland, physician-assisted suicide has been decriminalised since the 1970s; this procedure has been legal in Oregon (USA) since 1997; and, earlier this year, Belgium passed a similar law to that existing in The Netherlands.
In my opinion, the World Medical Association's views on "euthanasia" are gradually becoming old-fashioned. BMJ readers will remember a survey by the BMA News Review in 1996 which revealed that there was "a near 50/50 split" on the need for "a change in the law to allow doctors to comply with terminally-ill patients' requests for euthanasia"(1). If that survey was repeated today, I expect there would be a majority in favour of changing the law in the UK (a position which is supported by at least 85% of the public)
(1) BMA News Review Press Release, 30 August 1996
Competing interests: No competing interests
Well I think the implementation of principles of euthanasia should be
reconsidered because the execution of such a thing may create a huge moral
dilemma among the doers .There exists a very thin line between the
principles of euthanasia and do not resuscitate policy .
Yes the problem comes on the person to choose among various medical
and non-medical issues .Listening to the patient might be helpful , but
basing the inference on that will be inappropriate .
You might argue that chronic debilitating disease does warrant a
rethinking process . But I would say that every of those condition will
enhance the medical brains to work harder to find a therapeutic
alternative as soon as possible , rather than finishing with a lethal
injection.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Re: Doctors are healers, not killers. Whose responsibility?
The responsibility of a doctor for his/her patient at the end of life
is a heavy one as Dr. Seema Singh portrays, with its medical, moral and
social intricacies. [1] He supports Dr. Prasad`s belief [2] that a doctor
should only be seen as a healer, symbolizing hope, cure, faith, belief and
remedy, even when there are no answers.
He does not mention the other essential attributes of empathy, care
and compassion, either in the terminal case-by-case situation, or indeed
in all consultations, which lead good doctors to make individual and
appropriate decisions for that patient, and take the responsibility for
it, even if brought before a board, panel or organization. The doctor`s
duty of care is primarily to his/her patient: s/he is the one entrusted
with that duty. A board, panel or organization can only assess the facts
of a case brought before them, not be entrusted with the particular
decision at the bedside. Responsibility should remain with the doctor:
this is the basis of the medical profession`s contract with society. [3]
The public`s trust in doctors remains high – higher than in politicians or
civil servants. [4] This contract must not be broken.
[1] Seema Singh. Doctors are healers, not killers. Bmj.com rapid
response 3 October 2006.
[2] Chandrah S. Prasad. Doctors are healers, not killers. Bmj.com
rapid response 4 October 2002
[3] Medical Professionalism Project. Medical professionalism in the
new millennium: a physicians` charter. Lancet 2002; 359:520-522
[4] MORI: The Public`s Trust in Doctors Rises. 19 February 2002.
http://www.mori.com/polls.2002/bma-topline.shtml.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests