RSM logo
JRSM

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J R Soc Med 1996;89:61-63
© 1996 Royal Society of Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Twycross, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol 89, Issue 2 61-63, Copyright © 1996 by Royal Society of Medicine

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Euthanasia: going Dutch?

RG Twycross
Pallative Medicine, Oxford University, England.

My experience in 25 years as a hospice doctor have reinforced my belief that when everything is taken into account--physical, psychological, social and spiritual--euthanasia is not the answer. This belief is enhanced by what I see happening in the Netherlands. However, lest it be thought that I have become hardened and indifferent to suffering let me add that, although firmly opposed to euthanasia, I consider that: (i) a doctor who has never been tempted to kill a patient probably has had limited clinical experience or is not able to empathize with those who suffer (ii) a doctor who leaves a patient to suffer intolerably is morally more reprehensible than the doctor who performs euthanasia A doctor has twin obligations to preserve life and to relieve suffering. Preserving life is increasingly meaningless when a terminally ill patient is close to death, and the emphasis on relieving suffering becomes paramount. Even here, however, the doctor is obliged to achieve his objective with minimum risk to the patient's life. This means that treatment to relieve pain and suffering which coincidentally might bring forward the moment of death by a few hours or days is acceptable (the principle of double effect), but administering a drug such as potassium or curare, with the primary intention of causing death, is not.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
J. A. F. Goncalves
Sedation and Expertise in Palliative Care
J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2006; 24(25): e44 - e45.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Palliat MedHome page
S. Chater, R. Viola, J. Paterson, and V. Jarvis
Sedation for intractable distress in the dying-a survey of experts
Palliative Medicine, June 1, 1998; 12(4): 255 - 269.
[Abstract] [PDF]



  RSM Press eJournals Collection 2010