GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Royal College of Physicians faces investigation over switch to neutrality on assisted dying

domingo, 19 de mayo de 2019

BioEdge: Royal College of Physicians faces investigation over switch to neutrality on assisted dying

BioEdge: Royal College of Physicians faces investigation over switch to neutrality on assisted dying

Bioedge

Royal College of Physicians faces investigation over switch to neutrality on assisted dying

by Michael Cook | 19 May 2019 |

^{Royal College of Physicians building}

In March, the UK’s Royal College of Physicians (RCP) changed its position on “assisted dying” from opposition to neutrality after conducting a poll of its members.

Dissidents, however, have denounced this as a “sham” and now the Charity Commission has launched an investigation into the controversy.

A Charity Commission officer told the RCP, which is a registered charity, in a letter that it was “unclear how the decision to change the position to neutral was determined . . . the matter raises concerns with regard to how the charity dealt with and managed such a sensitive and high-profile subject matter.”

Apparently, the RCP council minutes state merely that “there was a general feeling that neutrality was a legitimate position”. The Charity Commission said: “Charities should ensure that significant decisions such as this are properly thought out.” If the RCP is found guilty of breaking Charity Commission guidelines, it could be reprimanded.

Before the survey the RCP leadership set the threshold impossibly high for supporters of the traditional view. It set down that it would move to a neutral position unless a super-majority of more than 60% voted for or against legalisation of assisted suicide. Only about 19% of the RCP’s 36,000 members voted in the poll.

Opponents of a change actually had a plurality when doctors were asked whether the RCP should support the legalisation of assisted suicide or whether they personally supported assisted suicide.

In the first, whether RCP should support legalisation, only 31.6% were in favour, while 43.4% were opposed. In the second, only 40.5% supported assisted suicide, while 49.1% opposed it.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

Being just a bleachers bioethicist, I don't have anything original to contribute to the debates. I just watch from the sidelines. However, one thing that does strike me is the number of situations in which the received wisdom leads to contradictory or paradoxical conclusions.

For instance, some doctors argue that the use of performance-enhancing drugs is wrong because it gives athletes an unfair advantage over "natural" athletes. But South African Olympic champion Caster Semenya has been ordered to take performance-reducing drugs because her natural endowment makes her too fast.

As you can read below, an Ontario appeals court says that doctors who refuse to refer for voluntary euthanasia (killing their patients) should be drummed out of medicine. In the UK, meanwhile, a tattooist has been jailed for 40 months for voluntary tongue-splitting.

And last week a judge in the UK gave his blessing to an unnamed couple who are allowing their 4-year-old son to socially transition to a girl. Four years old seems a bit young to make up one's mind about gender. On the other hand, the Belgian medical association has demanded that parents who give their 4-year-olds a vegan diet be prosecuted.

It's all a bit bewildering.