| • White Paper (9)
• Community pharmacy (3)
• NHS
• Medicines recycling
• Physician-assisted suicide
• The Council
Letters to the Editor
|
Physician-assisted suicide
Society should base official position on pharmacists’ views
From Mr S. Elliott, MRPharmS
I must respond to the views of Mark
Donaghy (PJ, 3 February, p133) regarding
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s stance with regard to physician-assisted
suicide (PAS). I believe that the Society needs to consult with the membership
on this subject and should, in the interim, maintain a neutral position
allowing all pharmacists to make their own judgement as to whether their
conscience would allow them to participate in PAS. When referring to the
nursing and medical professions Mr Donaghy himself states that “it
is a decision for their members to make” — by his own argument
the same must apply to the pharmacy profession. Why, then, does he ask
the Society to “state our objection” when the membership has
not yet been properly consulted?
Mr Donaghy uses emotive language, but I think that “killing patients” would
be an entirely different action to that of “assisting patients to
die” and I think that, if I were in the dreadful situation of having
an intolerable life, I should have the option of a humane and dignified
death, without the fear of burdening loved-ones with a dilemma between
guilt (for not assisting me with my wishes and so on) or possible criminal
prosecution.
Previous PJ articles have informed us that PAS is legal in several other
countries and that doctors’ associations in the UK have recently
adopted a neutral position regarding PAS. I believe that the Society should
allow individual pharmacists to consider whether or not “concern
for the welfare of the patient”, in our Code of Ethics, should be
interpreted as an obligation to keep the patient alive against their wishes
regardless of the circumstances. If PAS were to become legal, then individual
doctors would similarly need to balance their views against the Hippocratic
Oath.
I fully support the provision of an explicit conscience clause, such that
pharmacists, including Mr Donaghy, who hold views that are different from
my own, have the same freedom of expression, and such that I would have
the freedom not to participate in PAS in circumstances that I found unacceptable.
It is my opinion that there must be a legal obligation to inform the pharmacist
of the intended use of any drugs for PAS and that some form of written
consent from the patient would be needed (which could have unintended implications
for “life insurance” purposes). The proactive collection of
pharmacists’ views on PAS by the Society would open a debate on these,
and many related, issues and would allow the Society to take full account
of our beliefs and concerns around a highly complex and emotive subject.
Such a consultation would facilitate the Society’s contribution to
any future debate or, for example, any proposal for the legalisation of
PAS. There has been much correspondence regarding the representational
role of the Society, and PAS is one area in which it should take the lead
by determining pharmacists’ views in order properly to represent
the membership at large when it becomes necessary to put forward an “official” opinion
on physician-assisted suicide.
Simon Elliott
Bishop Auckland,
County Durham |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal