During the past few months, the discussion over the physicians' “Right of Conscience” has been on the rise. The intervention of politics in this issue shifts the discussion to a very specific and narrow area, namely the “reproductive health laws” which bear well-known predisposing attitudes.In this article, the physician's ROC is discussed in the context in which it naturally belongs: the Patient Physician Relationship . I suggest that the physicians' rights demand is a comprehensible, predictable, and even (...) inevitable step as part of the “evolution” of the PPR. Thus, the most appropriate way to comprehend and tackle the demand for physicians' ROC is within the context of medical professionalism. While searching for practical solutions to the “reproductive health” problems, there is a need to recognize the ethical and practical implications of the change in the PPR and balance between patient and physician rights. (shrink)

Recently, the discussion regarding the physicians’ “Right of Conscience” has been on the rise. This issue is often confined to the “reproductive health” arena within the political context. The recent dispute of the Bush-Obama administrations regarding the legal protections of health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs is an example of the political aspects of this dispute. The involvement of the political system automatically shifts the discussion regarding physicians’ ROC into the narrow area of “reproductive (...) health laws.” Indeed, the immediate association that comes to mind when thinking about the practical implications of this dispute is related to the reproductive health arena. This is partly because of the historical context of the first “conscience clauses,” initially enacted by Congress and state legislatures in the mid-1970s; in fact, most of these clauses provided specific exemptions for abortion and few exempted sterilization as well. (shrink)

Doing Right: A Practical Guide to Ethics for Medical Trainees and Physicians is a concise and practical guide to ethical decision-making in medicine. The text is aimed at second- and third-year one-semester ethics courses offered in medical schools, health sciences departments, and nursing programs. By taking an applied approach rather than a theoretical approach, this text serves the needs of medical and nursing students, residents, and practicing physicians by sorting through questions of moral principles relevant to the diverse and growing (...) number of healthcare professionals. The many topics covered include truth telling, refusal of treatment, assisted suicide, managing error, and reproductive choice. (shrink)

A physician’s long-established right to refuse to provide a requested service based on his or her moral beliefs is being challenged. Some authors suggest that physicians should not be licensed if they are unwilling to provide all legal services. Others would grant them the right to refuse, but require them to refer to a willing professional. What are the limits of a physician’s right to refuse? When such a right is claimed on moral grounds, what residual obligations does (...) the physician have to the patient? How should the profession (or society) decide when a moral claim to a right to refuse is justified? (shrink)

In this paper, we analyze the legal situation regarding physician-assisted suicide in the world. Our hypothesis is that the prohibitive stance on physician-assisted suicide in most societies in the world today seems to be related to our moral attitudes toward suicide. This brings us to a discussion about life itself. We claim that the total lack of legal protection for physician-assisted suicide from international organizations and most countries in the world lies in a philosophical assumption that supports (...) much of our common beliefs about what life really is. This assumption states that life must be thought of as not belonging exclusively to the individual. We argue that this assumption is a misconception that can be heard in the debate on suicide. Consequently we endorse a different conception of life which tends to favor a pro-choice stance towards suicide and assisted death in general. This position takes the patient’s decision about when to die more seriously. We conclude that there is no reason why physician-assisted suicide does not deserve legal protection as an individual right to die under international law. (shrink)

The job of being a sports team physician is difficult, regardless of the level, from high school to the National Football League. When a sports league receives the intensity of attention leveled at the NFL, though, a difficult occupation becomes even more challenging. Even for the NFL players themselves, players’ best interests regarding health issues are often unclear. Football players are, as a lot, highly competitive individuals. They want to win, and they want to help the team win. It's (...) a warrior culture, and respect is earned by playing hurt. Should the team physician respect a player's autonomy when this means allowing him to make choices that might lead to further personal harm, especially if the player's choices align with the preference of the coach and management? Or should the doctor set limits and balance the player's choices with a paternalistic set of constraints, perhaps in opposition to both the player's and the team's desires? Simplification of this web of conflicts of interest is the goal of the model proposed by Glenn Cohen, Holly Lynch, and Christopher Deubert. In my view, their proposal is very clever. As an idea, it meets the expectations its authors set, namely, to minimize the problem of conflict of interest in the delivery of health care services to NFL football players. The ethics of the proposal align well with certain moral goals, like treating the player's interests more fairly and treating the player's health as an end instead of as the means to an end. But will such a proposal ever make headway in the pressurized environment of the NFL? (shrink)

The legal treatment of physician-assisted suicide is in flux. Reform has been impelled by several forces, including the recent success of novel constitutional arguments in the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals. I will review and discuss Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington and Quill v. Vacco, addressing the constitutional arguments, and then briefly considering the attractions and difficulties of these new constitutional theories.Before 1990, state criminal laws dealing with assisted suicide had reached a remarkably stable consensus: (...) suicide was not illegal, but assisting suicide was a criminal action with no distinction typically made between physicians and others who assisted. The details of the relevant criminal law varied from state to state. Some states had criminal statutes specifically addressing assisted suicide, while others treated the practice under more general homicide statutes. But in no state was it clearly legal for a physician to prescribe a lethal medication at the request of a dying patient. While remarkable legal developments took place during the 1970s and 1980s regarding other aspects of the rights of dying patients, there was relative quiescence regarding the law of PAS. (shrink)

The legal treatment of physician-assisted suicide is in flux. Reform has been impelled by several forces, including the recent success of novel constitutional arguments in the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals. I will review and discuss Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington and Quill v. Vacco, addressing the constitutional arguments, and then briefly considering the attractions and difficulties of these new constitutional theories.Before 1990, state criminal laws dealing with assisted suicide had reached a remarkably stable consensus: (...) suicide was not illegal, but assisting suicide was a criminal action with no distinction typically made between physicians and others who assisted. The details of the relevant criminal law varied from state to state. Some states had criminal statutes specifically addressing assisted suicide, while others treated the practice under more general homicide statutes. But in no state was it clearly legal for a physician to prescribe a lethal medication at the request of a dying patient. While remarkable legal developments took place during the 1970s and 1980s regarding other aspects of the rights of dying patients, there was relative quiescence regarding the law of PAS. (shrink)

In many countries, there are health care initiatives to make smokers give up smoking in the peri-operative setting. There is empirical evidence that this may improve some, but not all, operative outcomes. However, it may be feared that some support for such policies stems from ethically questionable opinions, such as paternalism or anti-smoker sentiments. This study aimed at investigating the support for a policy of smoking cessation prior to surgery among Swedish physicians and members of the general public, as well (...) as the reasons provided for this. A random sample of general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons as well as members of the general public received a mail questionnaire. It contained a vignette case with a smoking 57-year old male farmer with hip osteoarthritis. The patient had been recommended hip replacement therapy, but told that in order to qualify for surgery he needed to give up smoking four weeks prior to and after surgery. The respondents were asked whether making such qualifying demands is acceptable, and asked to rate their agreement with pre-set arguments for and against this policy. Response rates were 58.2% among physicians and 53.8% among the general public. Of these, 83.9% and 86.6%, respectively, agreed that surgery should be made conditional upon smoking cessation. Reference to the peri-operative risks associated with smoking was the most common argument given. However, there was also strong support for the argument that such a policy is mandated in order to achieve long term health gains. There is strong support for a policy of smoking cessation prior to surgery in Sweden. This support is based on considerations of peri-operative risks as well as the general long term risks of smoking. This study indicates that paternalistic attitudes may inform some of the support for peri-operative smoking cessation policies and that at least some respondents seem to favour a “recommendation strategy” vis-à-vis smoking cessation prior to surgery rather than a “requirement strategy”. The normative reasons speak in favour of the “recommendation strategy”. (shrink)

BackgroundAlthough the Covid-19 epidemic challenged existing medical care norms and practices, it was no excuse for unlawful conduct. On the contrary, legal compliance proved essential in fighting the pandemic. Within the European legal framework for the pandemic, patients were still entitled to be treated equally, by a specialized physician, with the possibility of seeking a second medical opinion, in a confidential setting, following prior and informed consent. This study examines physicians’ practices regarding patients’ rights during the Covid-19 pandemic (...) and the effects of age, experience, and specialty on physicians’ behavior and preferences. Additionally, it explores the nexus of malpractice complaints, malpractice fear, and legal compliance.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on a convenience sample of attending physicians and general practitioners to assess compliance with patients’ rights regulations. Respondents were physicians practicing in private and public settings in Southwestern Romania from July 2021 to May 2022.Results396 attending physicians and 109 general practitioners participated in the research. Attending physicians acknowledged patients’ rights in 55.7% of statements, while general practitioners showed a slightly higher level of compliance at 59.9%. Emergency and Anesthesia and Intensive Care physicians showed the lowest compliance. There were no significant behavioral differences based on physicians’ age, years in practice, work sector, or location. However, when faced with the question of prioritizing treatment for patients with similar medical conditions, 46.2% of attending physicians reported favoring the younger patients. This preference was common among physicians under 39. Additionally, over half of the attending physicians reported working outside their area of expertise due to staff shortages. Malpractice fear was high among physicians, although unrelated to patients’ claims, legal compliance, or working outside the scope of practice. It resulted in pressure and behavioral changes.ConclusionAdherence to patients’ rights was low during the Covid-19 pandemic. Physicians could benefit from educational and administrative support to ensure better legal compliance. Further research is needed to determine if this behavior persists beyond the pandemic context. (shrink)

The author examines the ethical underpinnings of the Professional Standard Review Organizations. Four normative problems are explored in order of their importance: the problem of bureaucracy incapable of responding sensitively to individual cases; the problem of cost consciousness overcoming the commitment to quality; the problem of commitment to highest quality interfering with other social values and goals; and the problem of value judgments being made by professionals rather than patients whose rights and interests are most directly at stake. Though (...) physicians may indeed be able to balance qualitative and cost considerations with prudence, they, nevertheless, approach medical problems with their own value system. Deciding between marginal health care and alternative courses with a given amount of funds involves subtle value judgments that will vary depending on the value systems of the decision-makers. Because of their unique composition, PSROs cannot adequately reflect the social consensus about what constitutes a reasonable limit to health care. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 9, September 2020, Page 26-28.

How do we balance the rights of aging physicians against the right of the public to competent health care? This version of a classic public health ethics dilemma is here now and likely to increase as the population ages. Peer review has long been the standard mechanism for assessing physician competence, but it is subjective and too easily subverted. New options are needed, both in medicine and throughout the professions, but they are challenging to implement. Physicians have an (...) ethical obligation to protect the health of the public by acknowledging, assessing, and addressing the cognitive effects of aging on medical competence. (shrink)

``What Does a Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) Legallyentail?''''Much of the bioethics literature focuses on the morality ofPAS but ignores the legal implications of the conclusions thereby wrought. Specifically, what does a legal right toPAS entail both on the part of the physician and the patient? Iargue that we must begin by distinguishing a right to PAS qua``external'''' to a particular physician-patient relationship from a right to PAS qua ``internal'''' to a particular physician-patientrelationship. The former constitutes (...) a negative claim right inrem that prohibits outside interference with the exercise of aright to PAS while the latter can provide the patient witha positive claim right in personam to obligatory assistancefrom his physician. Importantly, I argue that the creation of sucha patient right, however, originates with the physician who may exercise an unqualified right of first refusal prior to promisingto help her patient commit suicide. In doing so, I hope to establishthat explicit physician promises of assistance in dying shouldbecome legally binding. As such, current PAS law in both theNetherlands and Oregon is in need of substantive modification. (shrink)

It has been argued that voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are morally wrong. Yet, a gravely suffering patient might insist that he has a moral right to the procedures even if they were morally wrong. There are also philosophers who maintain that an agent can have a moral right to do something that is morally wrong. In this article, I assess the view that a suffering patient can have a moral right to VE and PAS despite the (...) moral wrongness of the procedures in light of the main argument for a moral right to do wrong found in recent philosophical literature. I maintain that the argument does not provide adequate support for such a right to VE and PAS. (shrink)

Uncertainty regarding potential disciplinary action may give physicians pause when considering whether to accept a chronic pain patient or how to treat a patient who may require long-term or high doses of opioids. Surveys have shown that physicians fear potential disciplinary acrion for prescribing controlled substances and that physicians will, in some cases, inadequately prescribe opioids due to fear of regulatory scrutiny. Prescribing opioids for long-term pain management, particularly noncancer pain management, has been controversial; and boards have investigated and, in (...) some cases, disciplined physicians for such prescribing. While in virtually all of these cases the disciplinary actions were successfully appealed, news of the success was not often as well-publicized as news of the disciplinary actions, leaving some physicians confused about their potential liability when prescribing opioids for pain. The confusion has perhaps increased as a result of two relatively recent cases, one where a physician was successfully disciplined by a state medical board for undertreatment of his patients’ pain, and another where the physician was successfully sued for inadequate pain treatment. (shrink)

In each US state that has legalized physician-assisted suicide, the law stipulates that it may be pursued only by terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live. It appears that this requirement makes euthanasia laws more palatable for the general public. However, this restriction is not justified by the reasoning commonly used to support assisted suicide. The desire to alleviate suffering and uphold personal autonomy should require that assisted suicide be allowed for individuals who (...) do not have a six-month prognosis. The author concludes that a moral contradiction arises for individuals who support limited assisted suicide but oppose unrestricted suicide because acceptance of the former logically leads to acceptance of the latter. (shrink)

Physicians, so it will be argued have by virtue of their profession a weightier obligation than patients to disclose their HIV infection, and also have a duty to refrain from performing exposure-prone invasive procedures. This argument supports both the AMA and CDC guidelines on HIV infected health care workers (HCWS), while undermining the recommendations against disclosure suggested by the National Commission on AIDS (NCA). The argument is divided into three parts. First, a distinction is made between entrenched and fuzzy roles. (...) Second, the physician-patient relationship is described as essentially fiduciary rather than businesslike or merely contractual. Third, the conflict between patients' and physicians' right to know is portrayed as one between patients' and physicians' right to life. Last, given the the probability of infection from seropositive patients to seronegative physicians, and, conversely, is roughly the same, it is recommended as a fair social policy that whenever an invasive procedure occurs, both physicians and patients have a duty to disclose any serious infection that may jeopardize their lives. (shrink)

Consider these three positions about physician-assisted suicide:Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal for everyone.Physician-assisted suicide should be legal for only the terminally ill.Physician-assisted suicide should be legal for all competent adults.So far, the debate in America has been primarily between positions 1 and 2. I think it should be between positions 1 and 3. Both those positions embody reasonable viewpoints, and I will not try to decide between them in this chapter. But I will argue that the (...) double standard embodied in position 2 is morally untenable. (shrink)

The Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 established the norms for treating disabled newborns, but they did not address the treatment of premature babies. Parents and physicians need a framework for decisionmaking. A decision handed down recently by the Texas Supreme Court is a step forward.

State medical boards are beginning to take a more balanced approach to monitoring and disciplining for prescribing of pain medications, according to this survey of state medical boards across the country. Overall, respondents indicated that they are becoming more educated and more sophisticated in their approach to complaints of opioid overprescribing. In addition, their responses reflect a heightened awareness of the appropriateness of treating chronic pain with controlled substances.Yet, despite these inroads, boards generally demonstrate a continued tolerance of pain undertreatment, (...) the survey found. There is a discrepancy in the weight given to violation of standard of care, patient harm, and gross negligence for opioid overprescribing versus undertreatment of pain. Boards appear to have a higher threshold for patient harm in cases involving pain undertreatment — particularly for chronic nonmalignant pain. (shrink)

BackgroundNormally, physicians understand they have a duty to treat patients, and they perform accordingly consistent with codes of medical practice, standards of care, and inner moral motivation. In the case of COVID-19 pandemic in a developing country such as Bangladesh, however, the fact is that some physicians decline either to report for duty or to treat patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms. At issue ethically is whether such medical practitioners are to be automatically disciplined for dereliction of duty and gross negligence; (...) or, on the contrary, such physicians may legitimately claim a professional right of autonomous judgment, on the basis of which professional right they may justifiably decline to treat patients.MethodsThis ethical issue is examined with a view to providing some guidance and recommendations, insofar as the conditions of medical practice in an under-resourced country such as Bangladesh are vastly different from medical practice in an industrialized nation such as the USA. The concept of moral dilemma as discussed by philosopher Michael Shaw Perry and philosopher Immanuel Kant’s views on moral appeal to “emergency” are considered pertinent to sorting through the moral conundrum of medical care during pandemic.ResultsOur analysis allows for conditional physician discretion in the decision to treat COVID-19 patients, i.e., in the absence of personal protective equipment (PPE) combined with claim of duty to family. Physicians are nonetheless expected to provide a minimum of initial clinical assessment and stabilization of a patient before initiating transfer of a patient to a “designated” COVID-19 hospital. The latter is to be done in coordination with the national center control room that can assure admission of a patient to a referral hospital prior to ambulance transport.ConclusionsThe presence of a moral dilemma (i.e., conflict of obligations) in the pandemic situation of clinical care requires institutional authorities to exercise tolerance of individual physician moral decision about the duty to care. Hospital or government authority should respond to such decisions without introducing immediate sanction, such as suspension from all clinical duties or termination of licensure, and instead arrange for alternative clinical duties consistent with routine medical care. (shrink)

Burnout among health professionals is at epidemic proportions. In response, many health institutions have emphasised the importance of self-care, relying particularly on the idea that doctors who are burned out provide worse care for their patients. Although not made explicit, this suggests that doctors might have a responsibility to their patients (and perhaps others) to practice self-care. This chapter explores the potential grounds for such an obligation. We suggest that while there is potential for a limited obligation of self-care, institutional (...) emphasis on this risks instrumentalising doctors' well-being, minimising institutional responsibilities and workers' rights, and being excessively demanding for individuals. (shrink)

Sometimes physicians lie to third-party payers in order to grant their patients treatment they would otherwise not receive. This strategy, commonly known as gaming the system, is generally condemned for three reasons. First, it may hurt the patient for the sake of whom gaming was intended. Second, it may hurt other patients. Third, it offends contractual and distributive justice. Hence, gaming is considered to be immoral behavior. This article is an attempt to show that, on the contrary, gaming may sometimes (...) be a physician's duty. Under specific circumstances, gaming may be necessary from the viewpoint of the internal morality of medicine. Moreover, the objections against gaming are examples of what we call the idealistic fallacy, that is, the fallacy of passing judgments in a nonideal world according to ideal standards. Hence, the objections are inconclusive. Gaming is sometimes justified, and may even be required in the name of beneficence. (shrink)

Legal standards of disclosure in a variety of jurisdictions require physicians to inform patients about the likely consequences of treatment, as a condition for obtaining the patient’s consent. Such a duty to inform is special insofar as extensive disclosure of risks and potential benefits is not usually a condition for obtaining consent in non-medical transactions. -/- What could morally justify the physician’s special legal duty to inform? I argue that existing justifications have tried but failed to ground such special (...) duties directly in basic and general rights, such as autonomy rights. As an alternative to such direct justifications, I develop an indirect justification of physicians’ special duties from an argument in Kant’s political philosophy. Kant argues that pre- legal rights to freedom are the source of a duty to form a state. The state has the authority to conclusively determine what counts as “consent” in various kinds of transactions. The Kantian account can subsequently indirectly justify at least one legal standard imposing a duty to inform, the reasonable person standard, but rules out one interpretation of a competitor, the subjective standard. (shrink)

Advance health care directives and informed consent remain the cornerstones of patients' right to self-determination regarding medical care and preferences at the end-of-life. However, the effectiveness and clinical applicability of advance health care directives to decision-making on the use of life support systems at the end-of-life is questionable. The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) has been revised in 2006 to permit the use of life support systems at or near death for the purpose of maximizing procurement opportunities of organs medically (...) suitable for transplantation. Some states have enacted the Revised UAGA (2006) and a few of those have included amendments while attempting to preserve the uniformity of the revised Act. Other states have introduced the Revised UAGA (2006) for legislation and remaining states are likely to follow soon. (shrink)

INTRODUCTION[|]The practice of medicine has evolved from old approach, in which all decisions for the patient are taken by physician, to a new approach, which includes patients to the medical decision-making process and endorses informed consent of the patients. In addition to healthcare professionals and patients, parents or legal representatives are stakeholders in the informed consent process of children. The knowledge and attitudes of physicians and medical school students about the informed consent period in children are important for the (...) effectiveness of the medical intervention and the biopsychosocial development of children. In this study, it was aimed to understand involvement of medical students and physicians in the informed consent process of children and their level of knowledge on children's rights and their attitudes in daily clinical practice.[¤]METHODS[|]The study is a descriptive study and n = 150 participants, who were randomly selected from senior medical school students working in medical school campus or university hospital and physicians serving pediatric patients, were included to this study. Questionnaires were applied for the measurement of participants' socio-demographic characteristics, education on pediatric patient rights, and legal provisions. The data were evaluated using SPSS 20.00 software.[¤]RESULTS[|]Of participants, 62% (n = 93) were phase 6 medical students, while 29.33% (n = 44) were resident physicians and the rest were faculty members (8.67%; n = 13). The proportion of physicians, who didn't received training on child rights, was 80.7% (n = 46) and statistically significantly higher than medical students (49.45%; n = 45) (p <0.001). However, participants who were not educated about the children's rights stated with higher ratio (44.83%; n=65), that informed consent should be obtained before medical intervention from individuals under 18 years of age, when they are compared to the the participants who received education (20.69%; n=30) (p = 0,019). The majority of participants (59.5%; n = 88) find the intervention in individuals under the age of 18 years in emergencies without consent of legal representatives ethically and legally appropriate (p <0.001). The participants believe that it is ethically and legally appropriate to conduct an intervention on an individual under the age of 18 years without the legal representative (36. 7%; n=54) (p <0.001).[¤]DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION[|]This study compared the levels of knowledge and attitudes of participants, who were previously trained in or didn't received any training about children's rights and informed consent of children. However, the quality of the training of the participants on children's rights, was not questioned. This study showed that education on children's rights does not significantly increase the level of legal knowledge on children's rights. Having well-designed a subject focused on this theme in medical deontology and ethics education can increase the knowledge levels and improve the attitudes of medical students. This study sheds light on the issues that need to be focused in the medical faculties and the trainings of physicians and showed lack of information and need for development of attitudes regarding children's rights and informed consent in children.[¤]. (shrink)

"The fixed person for fixed duties, who in older societies was such a godsend, in the future ill be a public danger." Twenty years ago, a single legal metaphor accurately captured the role that American society accorded to physicians. The physician was "c- tain of the ship." Physicians were in charge of the clinic, the Operating room, and the health care team, responsible - and held accountabl- for all that happened within the scope of their supervision. This grant of (...) responsibility carried with it a corresponding grant of authority; like the ship's captain, the physician was answerable to no one regarding the practice of his art. However compelling the metaphor, few would disagree that the mandate accorded to the medical profession by society is changing. As a result of pressures from a number of diverse directions - including technological advances, the development of new health professionals, changes in health care financing and delivery, the recent emphasis on consumer choice and patients' rights - what our society expects phy- cians to do and to be is different now. The purpose of this volume is to examine and evaluate the conceptual foundations and the moral imp- cations of that difference. Each of the twelve essays of this volume assesses the current and future validity of the "captain of the ship" metaphor from a different perspective. The essays are grouped into four sections. In Section I, Russell Maulitz explores the physician's role historically. (shrink)

Joseph J. Fins calls for a reconsideration of severe brain injury treatment, including discussion of public policy and physician advocacy.

Since Oregon implemented its Death with Dignity Act, many additional states have followed suit demonstrating a growing understanding and acceptance of aid in dying processes. Traditionally, the patient has been the one to request and seek this option out. However, as Death with Dignity acts continue to expand, it will impact the role of physicians and bring up questions over whether physicians have the ethical obligation to facilitate a conversation about AID with patients during end of life discussions. Patients have (...) the right to make informed decisions about their health, which implies that physicians have an obligation to discuss with and inform patients of the options that will accomplish the patients’ goals of care. We will argue that physicians have an ethical obligation to inform certain patients about AID during end of life care discussions. We will also address what this obligation encompasses and explore guidelines of when and how these conversations should occur and proceed. Earlier guidelines, presented by various palliative care and ethics experts, for proceeding with such conversations have mostly agreed that the discussion of hospice and end of life care with patients should be initiated early and that the individual goals of a patient during the remaining duration of life should be thoroughly examined before discussion of appropriate options. In discussing AID, physicians should never recommend but inform patients about the basics so that they can make an informed decision. If patients express further interest in AID, the physician should open up the dialogue to address the reasoning behind this decision versus other possible treatments to ensure that patients clearly comprehend the process and implications of their decision. Ultimately, any end of life choice should be made by patients with the full capacity to express what they envision for the remaining duration of life and to comprehend the advantages and disadvantages of all the possible options. (shrink)

Physician aid in dying is a broader topic than euthanasia in that the latter usually refers to active euthanasia, while physician assistance also encompasses the issue of assisted suicide. Volumes could be and have been written on physician-assisted death. But my purpose here is to address a specific aspect of the topic: the policy implications with regard to proposed legislation on physician-aided death.Although the title's reference to physician assistance suggests a focus on the role of (...) the professional, what people often take to be most important and at the heart of the topic is the issue of the patient's rights, usually seen as being manifested in four different ways. First is the right to a dignified death, as free from pain and suffering as possible. In crossing national boundaries and preceding the organization of the professions and the creation of societies, this right is viewed as one that ought to be recognized. (shrink)