8mm
Posted on 07/19/2007 3:15:18 AM PDT by monomaniac
ABERDEEN, July 18, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Neonatolgist Michael Munro has been cleared by the fitness-to-practise panel of the General Medical Council (GMC) of Britain after he admitted to administering paralysing drugs to two dying infants, six months apart, in 2005 at Aberdeen Maternity Hospital.
The GMC panel found that Dr. Munro's intention was to relieve suffering, not to hasten the deaths of the children who were suffering severe muscle spasms in the last hours of their lives. With the parents' consent, Dr. Munro administered 23 times the standard amount of the muscle relaxant Pancuronium to one of the babies. The parents were informed that a probable secondary effect of the drug would be to hasten the child's death. During the investigation, it emerged that he had given the same drug to another terminally ill baby during its final moments six months earlier.
The GMC had said that the actions were "tantamount to euthanasia" and launched an investigation. In both cases, the children had begun to experience the painful death throes known as "agonal gasping" which had distressed the parents.
Dr. Munro, who had admitted that his conduct had been outside accepted professional practice, told the BBC last week, "I hope that today's decision will promote further consideration of the treatment of neonates and end of life decision making and that this, in turn, will lead to clearer professional guidance for doctors, better patient care and greater support for parents."
Sarah Christie, a senior lecturer in medical ethics at the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, called Dr Munro's case a classic example of "double effect" in which the administering of a drug was intended foremost to relieve suffering, but had the unintended secondary effect of shortening the children's lives.
"It comes down to whether you preserve life or end suffering," she said. "The majority of doctors would probably err on the side of prevention of suffering but it often depends on the views of the parents."
Read previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Doctor Investigated for Hastening the Death of Two Terminally Ill Babies http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071002.html
So why couldn’t he have given a lower dose, relieve the suffering and give the babies a few more hours with their parents?
Kind of reminds me of Ole Yeller.
Evidently a lower dosage wasn’t sufficient to control the spasms.
Have you ever seen someone having a seizure? From the outside it looks wicked and painful, to the person undergoing the spasms, they have no recollection of it. When it is over they are physically exhausted and require sleep.
That is the part that would drive me nuts. The infant appears to be sufferring, but is it? Do you permit the spasms to continue and force feed the infant when they subside momentarily? Or do you do your best to stop the spasms?
>>That is the part that would drive me nuts. The infant appears to be sufferring, but is it? Do you permit the spasms to continue and force feed the infant when they subside momentarily? Or do you do your best to stop the spasms?<<
I’m reading that these babies were terminal. Therefore, feeding them may not be an option. Controlling spasms, yes. Euthnizing by “just a little more” should not be done by a doctor.
But he admitted that this dosage was outside standard medical practice - 23 times over the standard dose. If the standard dose wasn’t sufficient, on what basis did he decide to increase it by such magnitude?
This ruling by the GMC in effect opens the door to any killing as long as the killer says he was only trying to stop suffering - isn’t that what every act of euthanasia claims?
The first principle of double effect is that the contemplated action be not inherently wrong. This principle requires some criterion other than the consequences. Standard medical practice would be that criterion; he OD’d the babies by a factor of 23 times, for crying out loud!
Yes, I have seen seizures and I have seen patients suffer from muscle contractures; I’ve also seen both treated in an effective, non-lethal way.
Ping.
Maybe you should become a doctor. Then you might be able to answer, “If the standard dose wasn’t sufficient, on what basis did he decide to increase it by such magnitude?”.
Evidently he convinced the GMC that he wasn’t trying to kill the child.
Regardless of what he told the board, his statement suggests that he was indeed trying to "euthanize" the baby.
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.