Extract This symposium issue explores several continuing controversies at the intersection of Law, Ethics, Healthcare, Politics, Health Policy and Religion: abortion, contraception, the status of embryos, stem cell research, IVF, personal and professional autonomy, end- of-life decisions, and religiously based health care systems. The multiple values associated with each of these topics strain and threaten to usurp the effectiveness of our legal system to regulate them.
Extract Patient autonomy is the foundation of the ethical principles that guide a health professional’s actions. It can be defined as “the right of individuals to make decisions about what will happen to their bodies; what choice will be made among competing options; and what they choose to take or not take into their bodies. ” By being a barrier to the patient’s receipt of a legally available prescription product, the pharmacist is not only denying the patient her autonomy but potentially causing her emotional and/or physical harm.
Extract . . . In medical and legal opinion, Terri Schiavo’s cognizance of her self and her life ended in 1990, when she suffered a cardiac arrhythmia and massive cerebral cortical encephalopathy that left her in a persistent vegetative state. Her facial expressions, along with a seemingly “normal” sleep–wake cycle, constituted but one dimension of the cruelty of this condition. . .
. . .More than one commentator has viewed the “right- to-life” fight to prolong Schiavo’s pitiable existence as an anti-abortion campaign “by other means.” . . .
. . . there seems little doubt that, in North America, ideology and religion have begun to seriously distort the type of consensus-building that is the proper business of democratic politics . . .
Where do physicians find themselves in such debates? Medicine is a secular and scientific profession that, for all that, must still contend with the sacred matters of birth, life and death. In practice, physicians must set aside their own beliefs in deference to the moral autonomy of each patient — or else transfer that patient’s care to someone who can meet this secular ethic. . .
. . .The emotionalism and rancour that swirled around the Schiavo case underscores a wider societal duty borne by the medical and scientific community. This is to remain alert to political and legislative tendencies that impose imprecise moral generalizations on the majority, at the expense of reason, scientific understanding and, not infrequently, compassion.
Abstract A competent person can avoid the onset of dementia by refusing life-sustaining medical care and by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, bringing life to an end well before any health crisis. A competent person can also try to limit the duration of dementia by drafting an advance directive that sets bounds on the life-sustaining care, including artificial nutrition and hydration, that medical caregivers can provide when the person no longer has the capacity to make her own medical decisions. But between these two strategies there can lie a significant gap. A person could live with moderate to severe dementia for a considerable time, no longer able to voluntarily stop eating and drinking yet also not yet requiring the life-sustaining care forbidden by advance directive. This gap has been much discussed in recent years in the Hastings Center Report. Several years ago (in the May-June 2014 issue), Paul Menzel and M. Colette Chandler-Cramer argued for what they described as a moderate correction to the dominant view that food and water should always be offered to a patient with dementia if the patient expresses a desire to eat and drink. The problem is taken up again by the legal scholar Norman L. Cantor in this issue (July-August 2018), and Cantor, too, tries to find a moderate alternative.
Extract . . . We are chided for publishing flawed research and told that we should be ashamed of publishing the “opinions” of self-evidently biased researchers. We are accused of doing a disservice to women, medicine and the Journal, of failing to conduct proper peer review, and of not adequately scrutinizing the credentials of the authors.
The abortion debate is so highly charged that a state of respectful listening on either side is almost impossible to achieve. This debate is conducted publicly in religious, ideological and political terms: forms of discourse in which detachment is rare. But we do seem to have the idea in medicine that science offers us a more dispassionate means of analysis. To consider abortion as a health issue, indeed as a medical “procedure,” is to remove it from metaphysical and moral argument and to place it in a pragmatic realm where one deals in terms such as safety, equity of access, outcomes and risk–benefit ratios, and where the prevailing ethical discourse, when it is evoked, uses secular words like autonomy and patient choice. . .
Abstract Despite nearly 50 years of experience with living kidney donation, ethical questions about this practice continue to haunt us today. In this editorial I will address two of them: (1) Given the possibility of limited understanding and coercion, how can we be sure that a person who offers to donate an organ is acting autonomously? and (2) Do people have a right to donate? The universal requirement for informed consent is the traditional method for ensuring that a person is acting autonomously. But, while obtaining fully informed consent is desirable, it may not always be achievable or necessary. When the recipient is very dear to the potential donor, the donor may base his decision primarily on care and concern rather than on a careful weighing of risks and benefits. I will argue that consent that emanates from such deep affection should be considered just as valid as consent that is fully informed. But consent is not enough. There is no absolute right to donate an organ. If there were such a right, then some physician would be obligated to remove an offered organ upon request, regardless of the risks involved. I do not believe that physicians have such an obligation. Physicians are moral agents who are responsible for their actions and for the welfare of their patients. Therefore, while the values and goals of the potential donor should be given great weight during the decision-making process, physicians may justifiably refuse to participate in living organ donation when they believe that the risks for the donor outweigh the benefits..
Extract . . . In unanimous rulings last month, [United States] Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the court, held that there is no fundamental right to assistance in committing suicide1 and that, legally, distinguishing between refusing life saving medical treatment and requesting assistance in suicide “comports with fundamental legal principles of causation and intent.”
. . . Attempts to decriminalise assisted suicide in Britain have so far fallen well short of legislation.. . . Pressure groups in favour of voluntary euthanasia seem to accept that it will be difficult to achieve euthanasia legislation in one step but consider that assisted suicide represents a more attainable goal. From an opinion survey of Scottish doctors, the medical profession seems less resistant to assisting suicide than to practising euthanasia. . .
. . . it remains to be seen whether societal acceptance of physician assisted suicide will increase and how it will affect both social support for vulnerable and dying citizens and trust between patients and their doctors.
Extract these Bills (one in the House of Representatives and a less wild version in the Senate) are unnecessary and deceptive. . . .The Bills would allow residents and programmes to abstain from abortions on any grounds, not just religious or moral. . . .So what is their objective? It is the de facto ending of abortion in the USA. By allowing more residents and more programmes to opt out of abortion training, safe termination of pregnancy in America will become even more difficult to obtain. Already, the number of competently trained graduates has fallen dramatically. Access to doctors and clinics has shrunk, and too many American women wanting an abortion already face a long and sometimes dangerous search for help. This is an attack on women’s choices and an interference in medical education. If it passes Congress, President Clinton should veto it immediately.
Extract The wave of abortion-on-demand legislation sweeping the world has reached our shores. The first blows to the concept of the sanctity of human life are being dealt at a time when health care in South Africa is undergoing tremendous upheaval. This concept may be irreparably damaged if the present Abortion and Sterilisation Act of 1975 is changed. . . Health professionals should be guided in their decisions and proposals by health values and by scientific evidence. Unfortunately these are not the only prerequisites, since moral and religious considerations are always subconscious realities. Enormous moral and ethical pressures already confront those making decisions about the provision of medical and health care in developing countries. . . The ‘unwanted’ child . . .is therefore victimised, not because of his or her own shortcomings but because society attempts to solve its socio-economic and broader health problems through the sacrifice of its children. . . To avoid abortions, fertility regulation (family planning)should be aggressively propagated in South Africa with specific emphasis on female education and counselling regarding contraceptive information, services and supplies and sterilisation. Contraception saves the lives of thousands of women around the world owing to avoidance of unwanted pregnancies.
Extract The children of women who have been denied an abortion are at risk of certain disadvantages, but such problems could be alleviated by better adoption and social programs. Since well educated women have the most “liberal” attitudes towards abortion’4 and are the least likely to have economic reasons for wanting an abortion, programs to prevent abortion should be directed towards changing their attitudes. Also, women who have been denied abortion should be followed up, both for the child’s sake and to prevent further requests for abortion.
