Was the BMJ right to take a stance on assisted dying?
False
BMJ
Was the BMJ right to take a stance on assisted dying?
Discuss what's in the BMJ and on bmj.com
This is an addenum to our big discussion on the BMJ's call to the BMA to take a neutral position on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent people. The motion was defeated and the propos
0
Cat:BMJForum:BMJ
Cat:BMJForum:BMJDiscussion:5bec648f-7ce5-4cf5-9c5f-68f9aad5dc74
|
Was the BMJ right to take a stance on assisted dying?
posted at 27/6/2012 1:07 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
*Moderator*
Posts: 1449
First: 7/4/2011 Last: 23/5/2013 |
This is an addenum to our big discussion on the BMJ's call to the BMA to take a neutral position on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent people. The motion was defeated and the proposer of the motion Ray Tallis said he was dissapointed at the level of debate. You can read all the comments on the issue here: http://doc2doc.bmj.com/forums/open-clinical_medical-ethics_should-doctors-neutral-position-assisted-dying_.0 One speaker seemed dissapointed that the BMJ had taken a stance on assisted dying and criticised the BMJ for not being neutral on this debate for neutrality. Do you think the BMJ should take a stance and be opinionated on these issues and others? Or should it be entirely impartial at all costs? |
|
Re: Was the BMJ right to take a stance on assisted dying?
posted at 27/6/2012 2:55 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 1270
First: 13/4/2010 Last: 23/5/2013 |
Yes - the BMJ should take a view one way or the other (and I don't mind which). Fence sitting is not an option, as Hamish Meldrum points out. If the majority of the profession opposes assisted dying then that is the view that should be reflected by their professional organisation and its journal. Likewise if/when the tide turns... I was very young when the death penalty was permanently abolished in 1969 and when termination of pregnancy was permitted in 1967. Did the BMA remain "neutral" on both of these issues at the time? They certainly aren't neutral about them now - they support the rights enshrined by the 1967 Abortion Act and they oppose the death penalty anywhere (indeed they oppose the companies who supply the drugs involved in carrying out the death penalty elsewhere). So how can they remain neutral on assisted dying? It just doesn't make sense and it's just hypocrisy in my view. |
|
|
Re: Was the BMJ right to take a stance on assisted dying?
posted at 27/6/2012 5:03 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 1286
First: 9/12/2011 Last: 23/5/2013 |
Yes, there must be a stance, being neutral only relegates the subject to more controversy. Sitting on a fence only causes ones Bum to become sore! Step forth. assert your vote, cast off the cloak of insecurity, make your voice known, and speak clearly your ideas. Lest you remain in the dark tunnel of the voiceless! DuaneF |
|
|
Re: Was the BMJ right to take a stance on assisted dying?
posted at 1/7/2012 7:56 AM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 3
First: 15/10/2010 Last: 1/7/2012 |
if a man has the right right to live, does he not have the right to die? if the primary duty of the doctor is to do no harm to his patient, by failing to assist his patient to die, does the doctor not do him harm? time for doctors to help their patients to achieve a good death if they so desire. |
|
|
Re: Was the BMJ right to take a stance on assisted dying?
posted at 1/7/2012 8:56 AM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 178
First: 13/10/2009 Last: 23/5/2013 |
The problem is that the public seems to give the opinion of the BMA far greater respect than the profession does. Recent strike action may have done something to undermine this. We really do not know the position held by the majority of doctors on AD . In many ways the BMA is singularly undemocratic and prone to rigging of its agenda and decisions. Both sides of the AD debate do this. One is always left with the feeling that the better organised side wins out. In this instance those against AD are also vastly richer and more numerous. A more constructive approach would be to have referendum every 3-5 years - not difficult to organise - with basic questions agreed beforehand . The fundamental issue is one which Society has to decide - it relates to changing our attitudes about dying and quality of life - and AD is only one of a number of issues which will need repeated debate in the future. AD is not an isue on which I expect individuals to remain neutral (I support it) but we should be wary about adopting any overtly partisan opinion which is so contrary to the views expressed by the public as a whole unless we are very sure that that is the view of the profession as a whole. |
