domingo, 4 de febrero de 2018

Conscientious objection and withdrawal of life support

Conscientious objection and withdrawal of life support

Bioedge

Conscientious objection and withdrawal of life support
     
Are British doctors obliged to withdraw life support if requested by a patient?

This question was raised by Iain Brassington of the University of Manchester, in response to the introduction of the Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill in the British parliament.

The bill would protect health care professionals who conscientiously object to a range of controversial medical procedures.

Brassington suggested that certain clauses of the proposed legislation may conflict with extant civil and criminal law, under which it is unlawful to fail to withdraw treatment (including life-sustaining treatment) from a competent patient who no longer consents to it, or from a patient who lacks capacity if treatment is no longer in her best interests.

Yet in a response post to Brassington, University of Strathclyde law lecturer Mary Neal said that there was no tension between the proposed bill and existing law.

First, Neal observed that existing GMC guidance permits a conscientious objection to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Paragraph 79 of the GMC’s guidance Treatment and care towards the end of life: good practice in decision making (2014) states that doctors can object to withdrawing treatment if their “religious, moral or other personal beliefs” lead them to do so.

“Doctors, at least, are already subject to guidance that tells them they can opt out of involvement in the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment”, Neal writes.

Second, Neal observes that extant case law requiring the withdrawal of treatment of consenting patients applies to Trusts rather than to individual doctors:

When a competent patient indicates that she no longer consents to life-sustaining treatment [...]continued treatment is unlawful...But this obligation belongs to the Trust...If an individual professional notifies her employer that she has a belief that forbids her from performing the act of withdrawal (switching off a life support machine, or disconnecting a feeding tube, for example), it is incumbent upon those with management responsibility to assign the task to someone else who has no such objection.
The Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill has progressed passed a second reading in the House of Lords, and will now go before a committee.
Bioedge

Saturday, February 3, 2018

For years bioethicists of a utilitarian cast have argued that conscientious objection has no place in medicine. Now Canadian courts are beginning to put their stamp of approval on the extinction of doctors’ right to refuse to kill their patients.

The Superior Court of Justice Division Court of Ontario ruled this week that if doctors are unwilling to perform legal actions, they should find another job (see report in BioEdge).

The case is sure to be appealed, but if the doctors championing conscientious objection fail, the consequences will be dire. Throughout Canada, doctors would be required to refer for euthanasia. If they refuse, they will be hounded out of their profession, or, at best, shunted into specialties where the question will not arise, like pathology or dermatology.  

This ruling shows how quickly tolerance vanishes after euthanasia has been legalised. In the Carter decision which legalised it, Canada’s Supreme Court explicitly stated that legalizing euthanasia did not entail a duty on the part of physicians to provide it. Now, however, 18 months and more than a thousand death after legalisation, conscientious objection is at risk.

It also shows how vulnerable religious-based arguments can be. The plaintiffs contended that referring patients violated their right to religious freedom. While this is true, is this the main ground for conscientious objection? As several doctors pointed out in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year, “Insofar as all refusals of therapy are ultimately justified by the ethical belief that the goal of therapy is to provide benefit and avoid harm, all treatment refusals are matters of conscience.”



Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
 Comment on BioedgeFind Us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter
NEWS THIS WEEK

by Michael Cook | Feb 03, 2018
But are the protests ill-informed?

by Michael Cook | Feb 03, 2018
High dosage led to toxicity and animal deaths

by Xavier Symons | Feb 03, 2018
An Ontario court has told a group of doctors that they must refer for MAiD.

by Xavier Symons | Feb 03, 2018
A court has ordered life support to be withdrawn from an 11-month-old boy.

by Xavier Symons | Feb 03, 2018
Are British doctors obliged to withdraw life support if requested by a patient?

by Xavier Symons | Feb 03, 2018
Should cancer sufferers have greater access to experimental treatment?
IN DEPTH THIS WEEK

by Merlin Crossley | Feb 03, 2018
It's an exciting field, with much to discover


BioEdge
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615

No hay comentarios: