Ethical Questions?

Mac5800 · 29-10-2004, 09:25 PM

cheers fatcat, was kinda right

**Ching** · 31-10-2004, 10:20 PM

Is passive euthanasia (ie witholding treatment) legal in the UK?

JA · 01-11-2004, 07:57 PM

I’m not sure if there are any specific laws about withholding treatment but there was that case recently about baby Charlotte who was so ill that the doctors did not want to treat her if she became even more ill (or was that the little boy who was on the news a couple of weeks earlier?)

And yeah those Raelians are pretty freaky…

**hannah_c** · 01-11-2004, 09:10 PM

not really on topic but i would have to disagree about the raelians. they have theior own beliefs which should be respected just like any other religion. as far as cults and sects go, this one is not a threat to society and therefore i see no problem with them. no one goes around mocking protestantism but that was once a radical sect resulting from a catholic schism which was percieved as and probably was in all fiarness more of a threat to society.

and just for the record i do not think protestants are a threat to societyas i do kind of imply this, after all i am one. however if you look back in history in that context they were kind of.

**jack** · 01-11-2004, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ching

Is passive euthanasia (ie witholding treatment) legal in the UK?

Yes I think so- it is practiced quite a lot isnt it? eg taking patient off ventilator

**Ching** · 01-11-2004, 09:40 PM

Or witholding treatment... like that doctor who dictated "nursing care only" for the Downs baby. The baby died of pneumonia, receiving no treatment. Or too much of a drug; I forget which.

**Daedalus** · 06-11-2004, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Nick B

can they ask you about euthanasia or abortion 'cos your religion may dictate your view on the matter.

Your religion may influence your view, but your views may not influence your actions.

A suitable answer from a religios believer might be something like:

"Well, as a practising XXXX, I personally believe that YYYY. However, I fully understand that as a practising doctor, it is important not to let my personal views affect my treatment and so, although it may not agree with my beliefs, I would do ZZZZ. I understand why some people believe that ZZZZ is an appropriate point of view and respect their opinions, even though I disagree"

A good example of this kind of situation is about prescribing contraceptives to underage girls (13-15y).

Except for some very limited areas (e.g. abortion) doctors are not generally allowed to 'concienciously object', as far as I know.

**wiseman** · 07-11-2004, 04:35 AM

Witholding treatment is only possible if giving treatment will actually harm the patient and have no positive effect (Ethical priniciple of non-maleficence and beneficence)

**Daedalus** · 07-11-2004, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by wiseman

Witholding treatment is only possible if giving treatment will actually harm the patient and have no positive effect (Ethical priniciple of non-maleficence and beneficence)

or not be economically viable.

eg. Limitation of IVF to three cycles for only women ages 25-39 under the NHS (NICE guidelines)

I think it is quite a lot harder than non-maleficence and beneficence when discussing withholding treatment.

**wiseman** · 07-11-2004, 07:27 PM

No it is not harder than non-maleficence et beneficence. At the end of the day these are the principles at stake. However what is hard is to determine whether prolonging treatment will benefit the patient or not. In most cases when there is a douobt the safe approach is to continue treatment.