swiftypete

Monday, April 20, 2009

RCN Consultation on

Assisted Suicide.

The Royal College of Nursing in the UK is presently carrying out a consultation among it members to see what the consensus of professional opinion is about 'assisted suicide'. So if you are a member and have an opinion on this topic you have until 22 May 2009 to send your views into the RCN.

One of the worrying aspects of this so-called "debate" is how the pro-euthanasia lobby frequently misrepresent the issues in the media and not infrequently caricature people who object to euthanasia as motivated by ill-will or sheer ignorance.

For example; the case is often put forward that it is accepted 'custom & practice' for patients to die in pain and that they are subjected to unwanted medical interventions. These commonly accepted fallacies are repeated so often and so authoritatively that the innocent public are unduly influenced by them. It is no surprise that public opinion is moving towards euthanasia but the fact is they are faced with the phoney "false choice" argument ie 'do you want your loved ones to die in agony, yes or no?' Who in their right minds would say anything but 'no!' given that proposition?

I have worked in children's and adult's critical care for more years than I care to remember and I can honestly say that I do not recognise the caricature of our profession.

First up, it is NOT acceptable practice for patients to be in pain - that is not acceptable and there is no excuse for it. If the disease process is such that pain control foreshortens life then so be it - that is not euthanasia or assisted suicide - that is effective pain management. This is exactly the same legal situation as someone dying as a consequence of any other medical treatment aimed at controlling the disease process.

Secondly, everyone has a right to refuse medical treatment. All interventions require informed consent. No one has any intervention "forced" on them - indeed to do so is a criminal offence! (There are some legal exceptions of course - when the mental capacity of the patient may be in doubt - in which case there are legal procedures to be followed). In my experience it is more often the case that family members insist on medical interventions when the professional consensus is that further treatment is futile.

Thirdly, the withdrawal of treatment is not euthanasia or assisted suicide. The purpose of medical treatment is to enable the patient to make a recovery. If the consensus of opinion is that no such recovery is possible then active treatment may be withdrawn and the disease process allowed to take its course.

None of the above are the cause of any ethical or professional dilemma! Okay? Clearly the truth does not suit the pro-euthanasia lobby's arguments which is why they resort to caricature.

When the pro-euthanasia lobby stress the 'pain' people are suffering we must of course exclude physical pain because that can and should be adequately treated. I suspect the 'pain' they refer to is existential pain - the pain we will all have to face at some time in our lives as human beings living in a fractured world. How far do you really want to push the limits of state sanctioned suicide as a cure for this? It is no surprise to me to hear that people who are physically healthy but feeling depressed are being offered suicide at a Swiss clinic. Given everything I have said above about the reality of pain control and informed consent and withdrawal of treatment I do not see where the pro-euthanasia lobby is attempting to take society except down the same route.

Oh! And no I am not motivated by ill-will!!!