Sadness at the prolonged illness of young Hannah Jones is only exceeded by sadness at the heavy-handed paternalism that decided Hereford Hospital consultants to try to remove her from her family and home and force her to have a heart transplant against her considered will.

Her reasons are her own but perhaps include some realisation that living hearts can only come from living bodies, as well as her generosity in thinking of others who are waiting for such an operation. As we admire her courage, we can pray that she will continue to enjoy life at home for much longer than is at present anticipated.

read more

Lynch, T. (2008) The Mental Capacity Act 2: patient advocacy and ethics. Nursing Times; 104: 43, 26–27.

This article discusses possible ethical and legal dilemmas in the interpretation of both the act and its code of practice.

By Dave Andrusko

When “bioethicist” Peter Singer moved to the United States, our loss was the rest of the world’s gain. In the time Singer has been the DeCamp Professor in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton, he has continued pioneering (so to speak) new anti-life vistas.

He is best known to pro-lifers for writing that “a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others.” He added (in the book Should the Baby Live?), “It does not seem wise to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of severely disabled children.” In a later volume Singer explained that the pool of candidates should include those with spina bifida and Down syndrome.

read more

The sad death of Daniel James has produced many emotions. I do not judge or criticise his parents whose bereavement must be awful, and will get worse. But few can have imagined the response of Lady Warnock, New Labour's advisor on ethics. Quite right too, was her message; he had a duty to kill himself. Everyone who would need so much expensive care should get out of the way.

The implication of her beliefs are profound. Obviously, if severely disabled people who can commit suicide have a duty to do so, then all the people not able to think for themselves – mentally handicapped, brain damaged, apparently permanently comatose and so on – should certainly be killed by someone else. No doubt Mary Warnock has got a little list - they never would be missed, they'd none of them be missed - but how is she going to decide who exactly to kill, or to urge to kill themselves? Where will be the cut-off where she thinks society should bother to care for them? Four limbs lost, or three, or just two?

read more

The reported apparent deliberate death of 23 year old Dan James in
Switzerland is a desperate tragedy for him and his family.  His deep reactive depression following the rugby training accident in March 2007 that left him tetraplegic is wholly understandable but it should not have led to his premature death.

The real tragedy is that his conviction that he did not wish to live a
"second-class existence" could not be shaken.  A young man with gifts ofintelligence and determination would still have had much to offer and oursociety has failed in not being able to help him fulfil his potential. One has only to think of the (admittedly exceptional) achievements of such as Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve, to realise that those with severephysical disability are still valued as people, and that the dignity is in supporting them, not in abandoning their lives.

Those who advocate and encourage euthanasia bear a heavy responsibility.

Dr David J Hill.

by Anita Kuhn

In a remarkably candid article about organ donation in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a doctor and a bioethicist make the unnerving observation that, in cases involving vital organs, many “donors” may not actually be dead at the time their organs are taken from them. While this statement corroborates the view of many pro-life groups, scientists, and physicians, it is likely to be news to the general public.

read more

By: Wesley J. Smith

In another study under-reported by the MSM because it cuts against assisted suicide, UK researchers found that about a quarter of assisted suicide requests in Oregon were depressed, and yet received lethal prescriptions.

From the story

Now a new study shows one-in-four patients who requested lethal drugs under the Oregon law were depressed. Correspondent Austin Jenkins reports on a study conducted by researchers at Oregon Health and Science University. The study--published in the British Medical Journal --followed 58 patients in Oregon who requested aid in dying. Most were terminally ill with cancer or Lou Gehrig's disease.

Of the 58, twenty-six percent were independently diagnosed with depression. Psychiatrist Linda Ganzini is the study's lead author. She says doctors need to do a better job of screening for depression before they write a lethal prescription.

Oh please, Dr. Ganzini: As I have repeatedly pointed out, the guidelines are not actually there to protect the vulnerable, but merely to give the appearance of control. And if one doctor says no, the patient just goes doctor shopping until one is found who will prescribe--usually referred by Compassion and Choices. So, there is no protection of depressed patients in Oregon, and none is really intended.

Beyond that, the guidelines in Oregon and Washington do not require actual treatment of the depressed before a prescription is issued. Indeed, the attitude of Dutch euthanasia supporters demonstrate that even if depression is detected, it really doesn't matter in making the killing decision. From a story in the New Scientist:

read more