Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:08:58.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Correspondence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Correspondence
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2018 
Eugene G. Breen
Adult Psychiatrist, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland . Email:

Unbearable suffering or unbearable deceit?

The series of 26 vignettesReference Verhofstadt, Thienpont and Peters 1 with copious surrounding soft speak about how awfully important it is to get it right about euthanising psychiatric patients, looks like poacher becoming game keeper, ‘We must really care for our unbearably suffering patients and end their suffering with this new treatment called euthanasia’ type of attitude. What is touted is a tick box – let us call it ‘unbearable suffering’ – that once ticked clears the way for comfortable acceptable and squeaky clean legal euthanasia of vulnerable people. This is pseudoscience all the way with the tacit implication that everyone caring and reasonable agrees that euthanasia is a legitimate respectable pathway for ‘care at the end of life’. It is not, and most health professionals strive to palliate suffering and not shoot the patient.

It is ironic that a clinic that supposedly carries out ‘end of life care’ has such a high mortality figure. Nine of the 26 presenting with letters die by euthanasia. In the rest of the world (except the countries mentioned who euthanise) criminal proceedings would be instigated against such ‘clinics’. To embed euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide into the medical world as a standard ‘regulated’ and supervised procedure is to undermine the doctor–patient relationship. Doctors and patients would now think of cosmetic death as a definite option and societal pressure would torment dependent individuals who are elderly or disabled into requesting it ‘because the doctor says it's the right thing to do’ (the doctor is not offering hope or any other form of treatment) and ‘it would take the burden off my relatives’. These are very vulnerable and easily manipulated people that need our protection and advocacy.

The American College of Physicians have again endorsed their respect for life and opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. 2 They mention the reality of the ‘slippery slope’ (which is occurring in Holland; for example see the report of a Dutch geriatrician on criminal charges for the unlawful death of a 74-year-old woman with dementia).Reference Sheldon 3 They also cite their opposition to engagement in suicide. Finally, they express the real fear of involuntary euthanasia becoming a reality.

‘Unbearable suffering’ is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is impossible to justify killing innocent life.

References

1 Verhofstadt, M, Thienpont, L, Peters, G-JY. When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia: qualitative study. Br J Psychiatry 2017; 211: 238–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 American College of Physicians Newsroom. American College of Physicians Reaffirms Opposition to Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide. ACP, 2017 (https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/american-college-of-physicians-reaffirms-oposition-to-legalization-of-physician-assisted-suicide).Google Scholar
3 Sheldon, T. Dutch geriatrician faces charges over euthanasia case. BMJ 2017; 359: j4639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.