8 responses to “End of Life (aka Death)”

1. 

   Bob Faser

   29/05/2015

   Kelvin, as always, you’ve made some important comments here, particularly given your high-profile stance on marriage equality and related issues. Some ultraconservative types try to convey the impression that all issues related to sex, marriage, families, and bioethics are a “package deal”. One either takes a conservative stance on the lot, or a progressive stance on the lot. Your ability to discern here on an issue-by-issue basis is refreshing.

   Another important thing is your question of “Who would actually benefit from lives being shortened at will? The patient is not the only person affected by a death, nor the only possible person to derive any “benefit” from life being cut short.” I honestly believe that it’s not only in Agatha Christie novels where a desperate person may be led to shorten the life of a old, ill family member for their own material gain.

   Reply
2. 

   Beth Routledge

   29/05/2015

   I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.

   In medical ethics this is called the Doctrine of Double Effect and is a recognised thing.

   Reply
3. 

   John O’Leary

   30/05/2015

   You show both profound good sense and Christian sensibility here, Kelvin. I hope that attempt at a seat in the British parliament won’t be your last. There is such a great need for your voice in a much more public arena than a blog, or a microphone in a church.

   Reply
4. 

   Anne O’Connell

   30/05/2015

   A beautifully nuanced, and well constructed piece on a vexed argument. Thank you.

   Reply
5. 

   Bob Chapman

   30/05/2015

   “I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.”

   It is all about intent. If the drugs are given to relieve pain, then it is the correct thing to do. If the drugs are given to shorten life, then it is the wrong thing to do.

   At no time should medical people feel compelled to keep a person alive simply to avoid a lawsuit or a criminal charge. There are examples of this happening in the US.

   At no time should treatment be given against the patient’s wishes.

   And, you can’t expect a one-size-fit-all approach to always be satisfying here.

   Reply
6. 

   Pam

   30/05/2015

   This is a sensitive subject. I can understand that people facing a terminal illness and in great pain may want to have control over their predicament. I agree that better quality palliative care would relieve much anxiety over this issue.

   Life is precious and should be treated as such. There’s too much potential for a lessening of the sacredness of life if euthanasia is legalised.

   Agree with your take on this issue Kelvin.

   Reply
7. 

   Rosemary Sloan

   30/05/2015

   It isn’t just about not dying in pain. It is also about living in pain. And about living with no dignity or control or choice. That bothers me just as much.

   Reply
   1. 

      Kelvin

      30/05/2015

      And can you imagine that it might be better to tackle the problem of living in pain directly rather than presuming that battle will always be lost and instead giving people the opportunity to die, Rosemary?

      Reply