Bioethics Blogs

Wall Street Journal readers weigh in on PAS

Last Saturday, the Wall Street Journal carried an excellent op-ed piece, “Dr. Death Makes a Comeback” (subscription required), by Dr. Paul McHugh, former chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital.  In it, Dr. McHugh opposes physician-assisted suicide (PAS), making three key points:

  • The practice will tend to spread beyond terminally ill people to those who are “treatable but mentally troubled.”  He appeals to the experience in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland, but does not offer specific statistics.
  • A “right to die” will become a “duty to die,” and payers, including the government, will refuse to pay for costly treatments but will pay for suicide drugs instead.  In 2008, a case in Oregon made a move in this direction—abortive, I believe.  (Note, however, that this argument can be tenuous in the case of treatments that are minimally effective or ineffective, but the financial pressure to deny effective treatment is real, I believe.)
  • Most importantly, in my view, Dr. McHugh appealed to Hippocrates, writing that “assisting in suicide hollows out the heart of the medical profession…the vocational commitment of doctors to care for all people…means doctors will not hold back their ingenuity and energies in treating anyone, rich or poor, young or old, prominent or socially insignificant—or curable or incurable.”

This is exactly what Margaret Mead said in a statement that I learned of in Nigel Cameron’s The New Medicine: Life and Death After Hippocrates, and which I have repeated several times in past posts over the last couple of years:  “…for the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing. 

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.