“Assisted Dying Bill threatens Doctor - Patient relationships” (BMA 20 January 2015)
Contrary to the sentiments expressed in the Medical Press that the Assisted Dying Bill due to be debated in Parliament on 11 September “will have a profound and detrimental effect on the doctor/patient relationship” it is designed to protect both the vulnerable patient and the doctor. This relationship is always affected when a patient who is terminally ill and experiencing unbearable suffering asks the doctor to take action to help them to die. Doctors are always having to balance the two professional and ethical principles of “do no harm” and “not to officiously strive to keep alive”
In our experience most patients towards the end of their lives willingly accept and appreciate good palliative care but sadly when they are so ill that their sick bodies no longer respond to palliative care and they are experiencing uncontrollable pain, progressive disease and intolerable side effect of medication, this is when they ask for help and have the right to die with dignity.
Medical practitioners and the loved ones of these patients who are asked to help them to die also suffer deeply, feel helplessness, despair and guilt that they are failing that person at the end of their life. When a patient is so ill going to Dignitas in Switzerland is usually not an option for them so this Bill will allow the vulnerable, suffering patient to make the final decision and chose the day and the place to end their life when the time is right for them.
The conscience clause will protect doctors and nurses who have conscientious objections to participating in the process of assessment, verification and prescribing as they are legally exempted, while allowing the patients the comfort of knowing that they do have the legal right to seek the help they want. Far from undermining the relationship it could be seen to strengthen the trust the patient has for their doctor who respects their autonomy, while being able to stand by her/his own ethical principles and at the same time be able to make sound legal clinical decisions and refer the patient appropriately.
Surely “judicial consent would protect vulnerable people”[1] who are the patients, and the doctors as well as other clinicians and loved ones involved with the dying person whose wishes are clear.
1 BMJ 2015. 351:h4437
Rachel Miller. Retired GP
Tricia Pank. RN. RNT. BA (hons) MSc
Competing interests:
Both of us have professional and personal experience working with very ill people in the last 6 months of their lives
Rapid Response:
“Assisted Dying Bill threatens Doctor - Patient relationships” (BMA 20 January 2015)
Contrary to the sentiments expressed in the Medical Press that the Assisted Dying Bill due to be debated in Parliament on 11 September “will have a profound and detrimental effect on the doctor/patient relationship” it is designed to protect both the vulnerable patient and the doctor. This relationship is always affected when a patient who is terminally ill and experiencing unbearable suffering asks the doctor to take action to help them to die. Doctors are always having to balance the two professional and ethical principles of “do no harm” and “not to officiously strive to keep alive”
In our experience most patients towards the end of their lives willingly accept and appreciate good palliative care but sadly when they are so ill that their sick bodies no longer respond to palliative care and they are experiencing uncontrollable pain, progressive disease and intolerable side effect of medication, this is when they ask for help and have the right to die with dignity.
Medical practitioners and the loved ones of these patients who are asked to help them to die also suffer deeply, feel helplessness, despair and guilt that they are failing that person at the end of their life. When a patient is so ill going to Dignitas in Switzerland is usually not an option for them so this Bill will allow the vulnerable, suffering patient to make the final decision and chose the day and the place to end their life when the time is right for them.
The conscience clause will protect doctors and nurses who have conscientious objections to participating in the process of assessment, verification and prescribing as they are legally exempted, while allowing the patients the comfort of knowing that they do have the legal right to seek the help they want. Far from undermining the relationship it could be seen to strengthen the trust the patient has for their doctor who respects their autonomy, while being able to stand by her/his own ethical principles and at the same time be able to make sound legal clinical decisions and refer the patient appropriately.
Surely “judicial consent would protect vulnerable people”[1] who are the patients, and the doctors as well as other clinicians and loved ones involved with the dying person whose wishes are clear.
1 BMJ 2015. 351:h4437
Rachel Miller. Retired GP
Tricia Pank. RN. RNT. BA (hons) MSc
Competing interests: Both of us have professional and personal experience working with very ill people in the last 6 months of their lives