I'm off to a good start into 2013, at least on the work-related fronts. Russell Blackford and I submitted in the dying days of 2012 the final copy of our up-coming 50 Great Myths about Atheism to Wiley-Blackwell, our publisher. I have also been working diligently with Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer on the 3rd edition of Bioethics - An Anthology, which should also be out some time this year. It's going to be an 800+ pages doorstopper. The question is what to do with the remainder of my sabbatical, roughly another 9 months worth of no teaching and administrative responsibilities at the university. I need to get going on a book project on Global Health Ethics, but there's also a tempting new introductory bioethics textbook to produce that's heavily oriented toward the inclusion and utilisation of on-line networking tools. Difficult call, but a decision has to be made. I have also written a piece that's forthcoming during the next few days in the Journal of medical ethics. Using the debate on infanticide I show how bioethics journal editors come under ever-increasing scrutiny by political campaigners and other pressure groups to publish whatever it is that these campaigners and organizations deem 'right', and that we cease and desist from publishing content they disapprove of. These are worrying developments. Keep your eyes open for the article. I understand that it will be an Open Access document, but if it isn't, ask me for the pdf and I shall post it your way. With Ricardo Smalling I have co-authored a paper that also coming out in the next few days, this one in the Journal of Medical Humanities. We are looking there at the impact religiously motivated anti-gay sentiments have on the professional (or not so professional) conduct of some health care professionals. Not terribly original is our suggestion that tighter regulations are required to protect queer patients from such health care personnel's unprofessional conduct. But it had to be said. We are also taking head-on the silly idea that conscience based objections to homosexuality should be a valid reason to treat queer patients different to other patients. Right now I am revising the entry on 'Utilitarianism' for the 4th edition of the Encyclopedia of Bioethics. I had written pretty much what I thought ought to be said and passed it by a number of colleagues. I received plenty of very constructive feed-back in the middle of the holiday season (who says academics are lazy!). During the rest of this week I will revise what I got, and then submit to the editors of the encyclopedia.
2013 will see in Canada a number of exciting landmark cases being decided by the Supreme Court (well, by virtue of them coming to the Supreme Court they got to be landmark cases, of course). Among them a case where the family of a patient in persistent vegetative state wants the taxpayers to fork out 2,000 C$ per day for futile medical care vs doctors who think they'd have the last word on cessation of treatment. I am not in favour of either party here, so I am curious what the Court will make of it all. Then, of course, presumably by the middle of the year, the Court should issue a finding on the constitutionality of the criminal code prohibition of any form of assisted dying in the country. I suspect that a lot will hang on whether the judges on the Court can be persuaded by one side or the other that there is or isn't a slippery slope from decriminalizing assisted dying in some form or shape to the killing of people who do not wish to see their lives terminated. I have seen no proof for the existence of such a slippery-slope, but who knows what the judges on the Court will make of the arguments and evidence presented to it. If you were to ask me for a prediction, I would guess that the Court will find that the absolute prohibition of assisted dying in all cases simply is too broad, and that it will open the door for decriminalization in a restricted number of clearly defined cases. But then, your guess is as good as mine.
2013 promises to be an exciting year for us bioethics and health policy wonks.
Showing posts with label slippery slope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slippery slope. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
Thursday, September 27, 2007
On euthanasia and slippery slopes
Colleagues at the Journal of medical ethics published research results this week indicating that the availability of voluntary euthanasia does not lead us down a slippery slope to all sorts of involuntary euthanasia. Here's a summary of the findings from eurekaalert.
No evidence physician-assisted death leads to 'slippery slope'
Legal physician-assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: evidence
concerning the impact on patients in vulnerable groups
There is no evidence that legalised physician assisted suicide, results
in disproportionate numbers of vulnerable people having their lives
ended prematurely by doctors, finds research in the Journal of Medical
Ethics .
Opponents of legislation, which enables doctors to help people to die,
have claimed that it leads to a "slippery slope."
It makes it easier to end the lives of those who might be deemed a
burden to society or their families, such as those with disabilities,
stigmatised disease, or mental illness, they say.
But an analysis of figures from the Netherlands and Oregon, USA, where
physician assisted dying is legal, shows that this is not the case.
The authors assessed all cases recorded as physician assisted deaths in
Oregon, USA, between 1998 and 2006, as well as three independent studies
on the topic.
And they looked at end of life decisions in The Netherlands in four
government sponsored nationwide surveys conducted in 1990, 1995, 2001
and 2005, as well as specialised research.
The figures show that only a few people choose the option of physician
assisted suicide.
In Oregon, 292 people have taken advantage of the legislation since it
came on to the statute books in 1997. This amounts to 0.15% of all
deaths.
In The Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
have been tolerated since the 1980s, and legal since 2002, provided
strict guidelines are followed.
Advance directives, requesting euthanasia in the event of a coma or
dementia, are now also legal.
Around 1.7% of all deaths are categorised as voluntary euthanasia, and
0.1% as physician assisted suicide in The Netherlands.
The average age of people receiving help to die was around 70 in both
places. Most had cancer. There were higher numbers of people with AIDS
among those choosing to die with the aid of their doctor, the data
showed.
But there was no evidence of any excess bias towards race, gender, age,
socioeconomic status, disability, chronic illness or mental ill health
in either place.
No prosecutions related to illegal deaths have been brought in Oregon.
And of those brought in the Netherlands, there was no evidence that
those from vulnerable groups have featured more heavily.
"We found no evidence to justify the grave and important concern often
expressed about the potential for abuse," say the authors.
The evidence "does show that there is no current factual support for so
called slippery slope concerns about the risks of legislation of
assisted dying - concerns that death in this way would be practised more
frequently on persons in vulnerable groups," they conclude.
No evidence physician-assisted death leads to 'slippery slope'
Legal physician-assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: evidence
concerning the impact on patients in vulnerable groups
There is no evidence that legalised physician assisted suicide, results
in disproportionate numbers of vulnerable people having their lives
ended prematurely by doctors, finds research in the Journal of Medical
Ethics .
Opponents of legislation, which enables doctors to help people to die,
have claimed that it leads to a "slippery slope."
It makes it easier to end the lives of those who might be deemed a
burden to society or their families, such as those with disabilities,
stigmatised disease, or mental illness, they say.
But an analysis of figures from the Netherlands and Oregon, USA, where
physician assisted dying is legal, shows that this is not the case.
The authors assessed all cases recorded as physician assisted deaths in
Oregon, USA, between 1998 and 2006, as well as three independent studies
on the topic.
And they looked at end of life decisions in The Netherlands in four
government sponsored nationwide surveys conducted in 1990, 1995, 2001
and 2005, as well as specialised research.
The figures show that only a few people choose the option of physician
assisted suicide.
In Oregon, 292 people have taken advantage of the legislation since it
came on to the statute books in 1997. This amounts to 0.15% of all
deaths.
In The Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
have been tolerated since the 1980s, and legal since 2002, provided
strict guidelines are followed.
Advance directives, requesting euthanasia in the event of a coma or
dementia, are now also legal.
Around 1.7% of all deaths are categorised as voluntary euthanasia, and
0.1% as physician assisted suicide in The Netherlands.
The average age of people receiving help to die was around 70 in both
places. Most had cancer. There were higher numbers of people with AIDS
among those choosing to die with the aid of their doctor, the data
showed.
But there was no evidence of any excess bias towards race, gender, age,
socioeconomic status, disability, chronic illness or mental ill health
in either place.
No prosecutions related to illegal deaths have been brought in Oregon.
And of those brought in the Netherlands, there was no evidence that
those from vulnerable groups have featured more heavily.
"We found no evidence to justify the grave and important concern often
expressed about the potential for abuse," say the authors.
The evidence "does show that there is no current factual support for so
called slippery slope concerns about the risks of legislation of
assisted dying - concerns that death in this way would be practised more
frequently on persons in vulnerable groups," they conclude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)