Assisted suicide debated in Australia
by Michael Cook | 23 Sep 2017 |
This week, bills were introduced in the states of Victoria and New South Wales, each of them described as having the strongest safeguards ever against abuse. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said that "This legislation will deliver the safest model in the world, with the most stringent checks and balances.” And in NSW, parliatmentarian Trevor Khan said his private member’s bill was "the most safeguarded process of any voluntary assisted dying scheme presently available in the world".
Supporters of assisted suicide are lobbying hard. A survey in August, commissioned by Dying With Dignity NSW, found that 73% of Australians support voluntary assisted dying. However, the poll was conducted online and the question was loaded: “If someone with a terminal illness who is experiencing unrelievable suffering asks to die, should a doctor be allowed to assist them to die?”
Euthanasia is one of the chief interests of Australia’s best-known bioethicist, Peter Singer. He wrote a strong defence of legalisation for The Guardian. Twenty years of experience in Oregon, he wrote, has shown that safeguards are working. Most of the opposition is due to religious folks who have no business bring their dogmas to the public square:
One of the world's leading experts in medical law, Margaret Somerville, attacked the proposed legislation, also in The Guardian. She rang alarm bells over safeguards for the vulnerable:Objections to legalising assistance in dying come mainly from those with religious beliefs contrary to this practice. To them I would say that, just as with same-sex marriage, if they do not want something for themselves, they are free to avoid it. But we live in a pluralistic society. Not everyone holds religious views, and many who are religious do not accept that it is always wrong to assist someone to die. I cannot see why the minority who have religious objections to voluntary assistance in dying should try to deny it to others who do not share their beliefs.
The outcome of the bills is far from certain. The results will not be known for weeks or possibly months.The risks and harms to society include damage to the shared values that bond us as a society and to our society’s “ethical tone”. We can’t judge the ethical tone of a society by how it treats its strongest, most privileged, most powerful members, but by how it treats its weakest, most vulnerable and most in need. Dying people belong to the latter group. With euthanasia we offer them death instead of loving care.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
There is a gap in the Nobel Prizes: there's no award for bioethics. There is the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology. Both of them touch on bioethical issues in some fashion, but only tangentially.
True, some Nobel laureates have provoked bioethical controversies. The 1918 laureate in chemistry, Fritz Haber, was “the father of chemical warfare”. The 1956 laureate in Physics, William Shockley, was interested in eugenics and sterilizing people with IQs under 100. The 2010 laureate in Medicine, Robert Edwards, developed IVF. James Watson, the 1962 laureate in Medicine, was interested in designer babies. António Egas Moniz, the 1949 laureate in Medicine, developed the frontal lobotomy.
However, the time has come. As reported below, the 2018 Dan David Prize, worth US$1 million will be awarded “to an outstanding individual or organization in any field of the humanities or social sciences who have transformed our understanding of the moral and ethical significance of biological and medical innovations in our times.”
It appears that this will be the last time that the Dan David Prize will be awarded for bioethics. So it’s a great opportunity. Send us your nomination, with a brief explanation. If we get enough entries, we will publish them next week.
True, some Nobel laureates have provoked bioethical controversies. The 1918 laureate in chemistry, Fritz Haber, was “the father of chemical warfare”. The 1956 laureate in Physics, William Shockley, was interested in eugenics and sterilizing people with IQs under 100. The 2010 laureate in Medicine, Robert Edwards, developed IVF. James Watson, the 1962 laureate in Medicine, was interested in designer babies. António Egas Moniz, the 1949 laureate in Medicine, developed the frontal lobotomy.
However, the time has come. As reported below, the 2018 Dan David Prize, worth US$1 million will be awarded “to an outstanding individual or organization in any field of the humanities or social sciences who have transformed our understanding of the moral and ethical significance of biological and medical innovations in our times.”
It appears that this will be the last time that the Dan David Prize will be awarded for bioethics. So it’s a great opportunity. Send us your nomination, with a brief explanation. If we get enough entries, we will publish them next week.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
| NEWS THIS WEEK | |
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
The American College of Physicians, the second-largest physician group in the US, sends a resounding No.by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Now three major medical lobby groups support itby Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Absolutist notions of human rights must be tempered by respect for cultural traditions, says German ethicistby Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Five papers have been retracted; one is in doubtby Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
With the birth rate so low, the government is grasping at strawsby Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
The main reason for requesting aid in dying, overwhelmingly, is lack of autonomyby Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Two states introduced bills this weekby Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
What happens when a commissioning parent is manifestly incapable of parenting?BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
Email: michael@bioedge.org
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario