(UK) Doctors who back assisted suicide 40 per cent more likely to withdraw treatment

Doctors who support the legalisation of assisted suicide are more likely to withdraw or withhold treatment from dying patients, a study has found.

Actively helping someone to die remains illegal in Britain but more than a third of GPs and hospital doctors report making decisions which they expected would accelerate the death of a terminally-ill patient.

A significant minority — 7 per cent — said that they had taken steps such as withdrawing medications, foods or fluid, with the intention of hastening a patient’s death.

But doctors who actively support a change in the law to allow assisted suicide are up to 40 per cent more likely to take such actions, a new analysis has found.

By contrast, doctors who reported strong religious beliefs or who actively opposed to changing the law were less likely to intervene to quicken the dying process.

Yes, I'm sure that when the British pols went to the people and said, "let's have socialized medcicine" they also told them, "Someone else will be making all your important medical decisions for you." Right? Gee, I'm thinking they didn't do that.

Plus, did you notice who it is that feels they get to decide life and death for the patient? Is it the fundie religionists? No. Is it the people who oppose legalizing assisted suicide? Nope. It's the people who want to legalize "patient choice" who feel it's their place to decide when, where and how the patient dies.

But no, it won't work like that here, because y'all have our best interests in mind, like this guy...

"I've got a great deal for you, just because I like you so much! She's got an interior made with genuine seat material and an AM/AM radio! And I throw in a free oil change with every assisted suicide!"

Take the time to look at the actual study.

Where? I already visited the Social Science and Medicine website, and haven't found it there. Link, please.

It’s a misrepresentation to portray it as doctors killing off patients. It makes sense that doctors in favor of legalizing assisted suicide would be more likely to admit on a questionaire that they had helped a patient do that...if the doctor were against patient rights, then of course they wouldn’t be answering that they’d done it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, cowboy! Wrong answer in a bunch of ways!

1. This is a study about withdrawing treatment, NOT assisted suicide.

2. If a patient asks to have a treatment withdrawn (or even something that doesn't qualify as treatment, like food or water) that's not assisted suicide and it's not the doctor's decision.

3. If the transactions we're talking about fit the mold of #2 above, there would be no need to have an anonymous study.

4. If these transactions fit the mold of #2 above, there should be a far less dramatic difference between the rates at which believers/atheists and pro-legalization/anti-legalization will move to shorten the patient's life. A Christian doctor who opposes assisted suicide is still bound by his oath and his Faith to honor the patient's request.

5. If the wonders of assisted suicide have to be kept secret because of people like me, how is it that these patients are seeking out a doctor who will kill them? Oh wait, never mind about that question, because this is a study about withdrawing treatment, NOT assisted suicide.

6. In post 5 you thanked me for "pointing out the terrible danger there is when we have others making health care decisions instead of the patient," but now you say these numbers reflect patients asking doctors to do things. Seems to me you're trying to sell me a car with Dynaflow and 5 speed stick.

Oh, and when the gubmint mails a cancer patient a letter telling them "We won't pay for cancer treatment but we'll pay for you to be whacked by a doctor," who is making the health care decision that the death salesmen said would be the patient's?

Yeah, I love the feel of that rich, Corinthian genuine seat material.

Where? I already visited the Social Science and Medicine website, and haven't found it there. Link, please.

In Press, Corrected Proof...
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.025

This is a study about withdrawing treatment, NOT assisted suicide.

Funny, but the title talks about doctors' attitudes about assisted suicide.

And even the biased news story points out that the study covered more than withdrawing treatment. Perhaps it's a difference of definitions, but a patient deciding to withdraw lifesaving treatment is viewed by some as assisted suicide. I am okay with either definition as long as we can agree on one and stick with it.

In any case, isn't it pretty simple that those who would support patients' rights for assisted suicide would be more likely to support their decision to stop treatment than someone who is against patients' rights to assisted suicide?!?

2. If a patient asks to have a treatment withdrawn (or even something that doesn't qualify as treatment, like food or water) that's not assisted suicide and it's not the doctor's decision.

Then write a comment to the journal and tell the authors that their study is bunk. Note the line included right in the abstract:

"Doctors usually made these decisions in consultation with colleagues, relatives and, where feasible, with patients."

Note the line from the Times Online story:

"But where doctors acted to hasten death, they did so with the consent of the patient or their families, and when they believed further treatments would be futile."

The study includes patient requests and I am just commenting on the study as it was done, not how you think it should be. (I find it funny that you're telling me about what the study contained yet admitted you hadn't even seen it. Also note that this is not his first paper from surveying doctors on this topic. I have some of his papers from Palliative Medicine (IIRC, that's not Elsevier), too.)

3. If the transactions we're talking about fit the mold of #2 above, there would be no need to have an anonymous study.

You don't think that the risk of prosecution would require an anonymous study?!? Bedsides, even if it were legal in the UK, there could be doctors who practice this but publically present themselves as religiously opposed (actually, there are...not "could be"...), so anonymity is essential.

A Christian doctor who opposes assisted suicide is still bound by his oath and his Faith to honor the patient's request.

Uh, no. Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough where this study was and what it covered. As Dr. Seale has pointed out in earlier work, lots of times continuous sedation is employed...perhaps overly employed.

Can you understand that this covered multiple implementations, as pointed out above? Can you also understand that my earlier comment was before I had read the paper and seen how the Times Online report was a bit misleading?

The limits of resources is a nasty one. Just saying "you get what you can pay for" is a cold way, and we must--as civilized human beings--cover those who cannot help themselves, but we're up against limits. Not everyone can have everything medically possible, and it's one heck of a difficult quandry we face. If the gubmint is going to pay for the utmost care for everyone, who is going to fund it?

At the same time, we have the FDA refusing to let dying people take drugs that might help them...because the safety hasn't been established. Well, I say that the people should have the option of taking the meds and dying that way if they choose to risk it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.