Ethics in a twist
BMJ 1999; 319 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7206.390 (Published 07 August 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;319:390All 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.
Coming at a time when less responsible hospital dramas are becoming
increasingly popular, this is the first time I have seen the ethical
issues raised in a way that gives them some meaning to the ordinary viewer
and potential patient.
Such a groundbreaking programme will no doubt attract criticism from
all sides – just as the central character, Dr Doone, is put at the centre
of every controversy. Yet it is this very process, coupled with the
educated awareness which the character brings to the dilemmas she
confronts, that raises our perspective of the issues in an informed and
constructive manner.
Too often, dramas dealing with life and death issues that elicit
strong emotions will only serve to open wounds. The viewer becomes a
voyeur, indulging in an emotional response without any idea of how to
think about the problems constructively (or react to them constructively
if similar situations arise in their own lives). Sometimes the viewer will
already have been through such a traumatic incident and labouring the
point brings no benefit except to re-visit the pain. Life Support is very
different – it uses the medium of drama to educate and raise our
understanding of the facts pertinent to some of life’s tragedies and arms
us with knowledge that helps us get a handle on the problems.
Episode Five was a typical case in point. Useful information about
living wills was conveyed in a realistic manner, with proper respect to
the pressures of day-to-day NHS care. The characters themselves are full-
bloodied archetypes that the viewer can identify with – not academic or
theoretical cardboard cut-outs.
The whole ethos of Life Support fits very well with some precepts I
remember from the man who was my tutor in medical ethics, Professor Robin
Downie – he would say that ethics cannot be taught, only learnt. The use
of drama is increasingly being recognised as a leading and powerful tool
that allows each and every one of us to say “how would I react in that
situation?” The major contribution of Life Support is that the series’
producers have gone to great pains to achieve a realistic representation
of the scenarios in question and have evidently sought and listened to
expert advice on how such scenarios can develop in an ethically
responsible (and legally accurate) manner.
This is television drama at its best. Hats off to BBC Scotland!
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Ethics untwisted
Chris Docker wrote:The whole ethos of Life Support fits very well
with some
precepts I remember from the man who was my tutor in medical ethics,
Professor Robin Downie – he would say that ethics cannot be taught, only
learnt
Doesn't this mean that Chris Docker's tutor in medical ethics was
wasting his
time if ethics cannot be taught?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests