Conscience, Courage, and “Consent”

Mark A. Hall, Nancy M. P. King

The Hastings Center Report
The Hastings Center Report

Abstract
On September 8, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to revise the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, widely known as the “Common Rule.” The NPRM proposes several changes to the current system, including a dramatic shift in the approach to secondary research using biospecimens and data. Under the current rules, it is relatively easy to use biospecimens and data for secondary research. This approach systematically facilitates secondary research with biospecimens and data, maximizing the capacity for substantial public benefit. However, it has been criticized as insufficiently protective of the privacy and autonomy interests of biospecimen and data sources. Thus, the NPRM proposes a more restrictive regime, although more so for biospecimens than data. Both the status quo and the NPRM’s proposal are critically flawed.


Hall, M. A. and King, N. M. P. (2016), Conscience, Courage, and “Consent”. Hastings Center Report, 46: 30–32. doi: 10.1002/hast.546

(Editorial) Physician assisted suicide, euthanasia, or withdrawal of treatment: Distinguishing between them clarifies moral, legal, and practical positions

Larry R Churchill, Nancy MP King

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

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.


Churchill LR, King NMP. (Editorial) Physician assisted suicide, euthanasia, or withdrawal of treatment: Distinguishing between them clarifies moral, legal, and practical positions. Br Med J. 1997 Jul 19;315(7101):137-138.