Citation

Gillett G, Chamberlain J. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2013; 36(5-6): 454-460.

Affiliation

University of Otago, Bioethics Centre, New Zealand. Electronic address: grant.gillett@otago.ac.nz.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.06.017

PMID

23830641

Abstract

There is a continuing intense medico-ethico-legal debate around legalized euthanasia and physician assisted suicide such that ethically informed clinicians often agree with the arguments but feel hesitant about the conclusion, especially when it may bring about a change in law. We argue that this confusion results from the convergence of two continua that underpin the conduct of a clinician and are especially prominent in psychiatry. The two continua concern the duty of care and the importance of patient autonomy and they do not quite map into traditional divides in debates about sanctity of life, paternalism, and autonomy. As ethical dimensions, they come into sharp focus in the psychological complexities of end-of-life care and they form two key factors in most ethical and legal or disciplinary deliberations about a clinician's actions. Whereas both dimensions are important when a clinician reflects on what s/he has done or should do, they need careful balancing in a request for euthanasia or physician assisted suicide where the patient wants to take a decisive role in his or her own end-of-life care. However, end-of-life is also a situation where clinicians often encounter 'cries for help' so that both continua are importantly in play. Balancing these two continua without using blunt legal instruments is often required in psychiatric care in such a way as to problematize the idea that patient decisions should dominate the care options available. A simplistic approach to that issue arguably plays into what has been called an 'impoverished construction of life and death' and, some would say, devalues the basic commitments fundamental to medical care.

Language: en