Fairly Bland: an alternative view of a supposed new 'death ethic' and the BMA guidelines.
Recently in this journal John Keown attacked the BMA Guidance published on 'Withholding and Withdrawing Life-prolonging Medical Treatment', arguing that it was fundamentally at odds with the sanctity of life doctrine as properly understood, condemning the intentional termination of individuals' lives. In riposte it is asserted that even this modified version of the doctrine cannot support a defensible moral or legal standard for decision-making here, being founded upon an excessive emphasis on the mental state of the clinician and an inappropriately narrow focus on the effects of the proposed treatment on the 'health' of the patient, as opposed to being primarily driven by the (best) interests of the patient. The attempt to divorce treatment decisions from broader evaluations of the net benefit or otherwise able to be attained by the patient from such treatment, including the taking into account of the individual's handicapped state, accordingly fails. Acceptance of such reality is, at the least, the first step toward a common language for further dialogue even between those with polar opposite opinions in this sphere.
Price
D
D
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.
D000328:Adult; D003657:Decision Making; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006708:Homicide / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D033182:Intention; D007883:Legislation, Medical; D018447:Medical Futility; D018529:Nutritional Support / Q000941:ethics; D016134:Organizational Policy; D011788:Quality of Life; D012955:Societies, Medical / Q000592:standards*; D006113:United Kingdom; D026712:Value of Life