The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7391 p292-293
11 March 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· SOPs (2)
· Methadone mixture
· Oxygen services (2)
· Assisted dying (3)
· Branded prescribing
· Boots / UniChem merger

Letters to the Editor

Assisted dying

An anti-religious outlook is not a neutral viewpoint

From Dr C. K. Tan, MRPharmS

It is incredible how Keith Seston (PJ, 25 February, p232) managed to interpret Susan Boorman’s personally moving and eminently reasonable remarks (PJ, 11 February, p168) as an attempt to impose her views on others. Perhaps he holds that any view is acceptable and valid as long as it is a non-religious view. Ms Boorman attests to her belief in God and that premise governs her actions. A man who holds to an atheistic view is also governed by those atheistic beliefs. None of us lives in an intellectual, moral or spiritual vacuum. Our attitudes towards a whole range of issues are directly linked to the beliefs we hold, whether they are theistic, deistic, atheistic or agnostic. To hold to the view that a non- or anti-religious outlook is the neutral position is not logical; it sails close to embracing atheistic “fundamentalism and fanaticism”. The assumption that holding firmly to one’s religious views equates to not supporting the rights of patients is as nonsensical as stating that holding firmly to one’s non-religious views equates to supporting the rights of patients. Christians also support the rights of patients.

It is true that, tragically, abuses have been carried out in the name of religion. People with anti-religious views also do disturbing things, not quite in line with the idealistic imaginations.

Communism, for example, has been estimated to have cost the lives of between 85 million and 100 million victims,¹ far in excess of that committed under Nazism (another anti-religious world viewpoint).

Naturally, one has to be cautious of statistics but it serves to point out why many in society, Christians and non-Christians alike, are rightly concerned at legislating for euthanasia without including a religious moral framework.

I respect the views of those who do not embrace Christian or other religious beliefs but let us refrain from the kind of thinking that those who express a Christian viewpoint are attempting to “impose their views on others”.

Chik Tan
Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire

Reference

1. Courtois S, Werth N, Panne J-L, Paczkowski A, Bartosek K, Margolin J-L, The black book of communism: crimes, terror, repression. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1999.

Respect for a view does mean support for that view

From Miss J. A. Smyth, MRPharmS

After reading Keith Seston’s letter (PJ, 25 February, p232) I was prompted to reread Susan Boorman’s (PJ, 11 February, p160). However, I am still at a loss to see how he relates a “piece on fundamentalism and fanaticism” to Miss Boorman’s comments. She has been involved in the process of terminal care in both a professional and a personal capacity, and only in the last two sentences of her letter does she allude to her beliefs.

If Mr Seston believes that either he or his patient is the highest authority in their interaction, then he is free to support his patient’s wishes if he so chooses. But if, as a Christian, Miss Boorman believes in an authority higher than herself, then she has to consider the wishes of that authority as well as those of her patient. She may respect the right of the patient to hold an alternative view, but she cannot support it.

You are correct, Mr Seston, in saying that too many in this world are attempting to impose their views on others. So why should Miss Boorman and those who share her beliefs not refuse to be imposed upon?

Jen Smyth
Wrexham, Clwyd

A moral, not an intellectual issue for Christians

From Mr S. Goundrey-Smith, MRPharmS

I was interested to read Keith Seston’s response (PJ, 25 February, p232) to Susan Boorman’s letter (PJ, 11 February, p160) on assisted dying. He seems to suppose that the wishes of a patient are an abstract philosophical issue that may be debated in a non-emotive way and that the pharmacist should respect those wishes, even if he does “not agree” with them.

However, I can assure him that, for the Christian pharmacist, involvement in assisted dying is a moral issue, not an intellectual issue. Christians believe that killing another human being is objectively wrong in any circumstance, and the act of killing someone would be morally repugnant to them. Consequently, most, if not all, Christian pharmacists would be unhappy about assisting with the suicide of another person, regardless of whether they “agreed” with the person’s reasons for taking their own life.

Mr Seston asserts that “too many in this world are already attempting to impose their views on others.” However, this is precisely what will happen in the assisted dying scenario, where the patient will be imposing their view on the health professionals involved and, in this scenario, the views of the patient will be in direct opposition to the moral convictions of the Christian physician or pharmacist. For the patient, the “right” to die, involves a reciprocal duty to kill and, even if the patient self-administers the lethal medication, any health professionals involved are morally implicated in the taking of a life.

In the event of a change to the law in the UK, I would urge those in positions of influence to ensure that first, from a legal and ethical perspective, a pharmacist is notified if a prescription is specifically and solely intended as a lethal dose in assisted suicide (although the double-effect issue is hard to regulate), and that secondly, there is a “conscience clause” provision in the Code of Ethics to safeguard the moral position of pharmacists who, because of religion or other reasons of conscience, cannot countenance being involved with assisted suicide.

Stephen Goundrey-Smith
Banbury, Oxfordshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Oxygen services)
Next Topic (Branded prescribing)