0 - Page 5 of 5 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation

Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu

Abstract
There are not enough solid organs available to meet the needs of patients with organ failure. Thousands of patients every year die on the waiting lists for transplantation. Yet there is one currently available, underutilized, potential source of organs. Many patients die in intensive care following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment whose organs could be used to save the lives of others. At present the majority of these organs go to waste. In this paper we consider and evaluate a range of ways to improve the number and quality of organs available from this group of patients. Changes to consent arrangements (for example conscription of organs after death) or changes to organ donation practice could dramatically increase the numbers of organs available, though they would conflict with currently accepted norms governing transplantation. We argue that one alternative, Organ Donation Euthanasia, would be a rational improvement over current practice regarding withdrawal of life support. It would give individuals the greatest chance of being able to help others with their organs after death. It would increase patient autonomy. It would reduce the chance of suffering during the dying process. We argue that patients should be given the choice of whether and how they would like to donate their organs in the event of withdrawal of life support in intensive care. Continuing current transplantation practice comes at the cost of death and prolonged organ failure. We should seriously consider all of the alternatives.

Wilkinson D, Savulescu J. Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation. Bioethics. 2012 Jan;26(1):32-48.

(News) Scientific misconduct is worryingly prevalent in the UK, shows BMJ survey

Aniket Tavare

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
One in seven UK based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication, found a survey of more than 2700 researchers conducted by the BMJ.

The survey, which was emailed to 9036 academics and clinicians who had submitted articles to the BMJ or acted as peer reviewers for the journal (response rate 31%), found that 13% of these researchers admitted knowledge of colleagues “inappropriately adjusting, excluding, altering, or fabricating data” for the purpose of publication.

Tavare A. Scientific misconduct is worryingly prevalent in the UK, shows BMJ survey. BMJ2012;344:e377

Are general practitioners prepared to end life on request in a country where euthanasia is legalised?

M Sercu, P Pype, T Christiaens, M Grypdonck, A Derese, M Deveugele

Abstract
Background: In 2002, Belgium set a legal framework for euthanasia, whereby granting and performing euthanasia is entrusted entirely to physicians, and—as advised by Belgian Medical Deontology—in the context of a trusted patient–physician relationship. Euthanasia is, however, rarely practiced, so the average physician will not attain routine in this matter.

Aim: To explore how general practitioners in Flanders (Belgium) deal with euthanasia. This was performed via qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews with 52 general practitioners (GPs).

Results: Although GPs can understand a patient’s request for euthanasia, their own willingness to perform it is limited, based on their assumption that legal euthanasia equates to an injection that ends life abruptly. Their willingness to perform euthanasia is affected by the demanding nature of a patient’s request, by their views on what circumstances render euthanasia legitimate and by their own ability to inject a lethal dose. Several GPs prefer increasing opioid dosages and palliative sedation to a lethal injection, which they consider to fall outside the scope of euthanasia legislation.

Conclusions: Four attitudes can be identified: (1) willing to perform euthanasia; (2) only willing to perform as a last resort; (3) feeling incapable of performing; (4) refusing on principle. The situation where GPs have to consider the request and—if they grant it—to perform the act may result in arbitrary access to euthanasia for the patient. The possibility of installing transparent referral and support strategies for the GPs should be further examined. Further discussion is needed in the medical profession about the exact content of the euthanasia law.

Sercu M, Pype P, Christiaens T, Grypdonck M, Derese A, Deveugele M. Are general practitioners prepared to end life on request in a country where euthanasia is legalised? J Med Ethics. 2012 Jan 10;38(5) 274-280.

It’s in My Patients’ Best Interests, So What’s The Problem?

Rachelle Blue

Extract
Upon completion of her DDS degree, Martha . . .enters into a verbal agreement with the principal dentist . . . After working at the practice for several months, Martha notices that her paycheques seem to be consistently smaller than expected . . . she sees that the office has not been collecting the twenty percent co-payment from the insured patients, and has been routinely writing this amount off . . . Her initial gut reaction is that the insured patients are benefiting from the practice, so maybe it’s not such a big deal. However, her recent education in dental ethics causes her to take a more reflective approach.

Blue R. It’s in My Patients’ Best Interests, So What’s The Problem?. J Leg Med. 2012;33(1):129-136.

Conscientious objection to sexual and reproductive health services: international human rights standards and European law and practice

Ximena Andión-Ibañez, Christina Zampas

Abstract
The practice of conscientious objection often arises in the area of individuals refusing to fulfil compulsory military service requirements and is based on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as protected by national, international and regional human rights law. The practice of conscientious objection also arises in the field of health care, when individual health care providers or institutions refuse to provide certain health services based on religious, moral or philosophical objections. The use of conscientious objection by health care providers to reproductive health care services, including abortion, contraceptive prescriptions, and prenatal tests, among other services is a growing phenomena throughout Europe. However, despite recent progress from the European Court of Human Rights on this issue (RR v. Poland, 2011), countries and international and regional bodies generally have failed to comprehensively and effectively regulate this practice, denying many women reproductive health care services they are legally entitled to receive. The Italian Ministry of Health reported that in 2008 nearly 70% of gynaecologists in Italy refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds. It found that between 2003 and 2007 the number of gynaecologists invoking conscientious objection in their refusal to perform an abortion rose from 58.7 percent to 69.2 percent. Italy is not alone in Europe, for example, the practice is prevalent in Poland, Slovakia, and is growing in the United Kingdom. This article outlines the international and regional human rights obligations and medical standards on this issue, and highlights some of the main gaps in these standards. It illustrates how European countries regulate or fail to regulate conscientious objection and how these regulations are working in practice, including examples of jurisprudence from national level courts and cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Finally, the article will provide recommendations to national governments as well as to international and regional bodies on how to regulate conscientious objection so as to both respect the practice of conscientious objection while protecting individual’s right to reproductive health care.

Andión-Ibañez X, Zampas C. Conscientious objection to sexual and reproductive health services: international human rights standards and European law and practice. European J Health Law. 2012;19(3):231-256.