LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our " News of the Wesp." paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.] DOCTORS AND THE RIGHT TO KILL [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In the issue of The Spectator for July 27th, there appears a very interesting article by Dr. Harry Roberts,
who at the close makes this observation, that "the slope that starts with contraception and proceeds through abortion to the painless slaughter of undesirables is a slippery one, of which we cannot see the bottom." Since this is the case it becomes necessary that we doctors should face the position frankly. Either we are to enter upon an entirely new scheme of medical propriety and honour, a scheme which assumes that in some circumstances we are justified in taking away life which up to now it has been consistently our duty and privilege to endeavour at all times to preserve, or we must cling firmly to the age-long tradition of the profession as the conservators, and never the destroyers, of life. Even if one should make the gigantic assumption that in any circum- stances it is permissible to take life (I am not discussing the matter of homicide, whether military, justifiable, or penal), it by no means follows that the carrying out of that claim to its completion should fall upon the medical profession. It might be, it might very well be, that the most important witness before a tribunal instituted for the purpose of settling the question in a given case is the medical attendant of the Petitioner (or victim), but he should never be the judge. In the very nature of things he ought not to be.
If we take the very sad case with which Dr. Roberts begins his article and argue from it, would not the first point of im- portance be this : Mr. X has for some years been a patient of mine ; the contract between us has been that I am to do what I can to keep him in life and health ; am I now to be set free from this contract and to act in a contrary sense ? " Is a person to be permitted by law to take his own life, in any possible circumstances ? That point must first be settled. If not, then a fortiori no other person can possibly put forward a claim to have such a defensible privilege. If a man can acquire, or possesses, 1 uch a right on his own part, it does not follow that the doctor whp has undertaken to do his best to preserve that life has thereby acquired the privilege of assisting him to commit suicide, and most emphatically it does not become his duty to do so. Technically, as matters stand, even if he merely assists and takes no active part, he is guilty of murder.
Dr. Roberts's second paragraph illustrates a second phase of this dangerous doctrine, for in it the request for death comes not from the patient himself, but from certain relatives—a request not so much that the sick person may be relieved from her pains as that the relatives desire to be saved from the distress of watching the spectacle of suffering—a request that murder be done to relieve their feelings. In another case it might quite well be that the relatives of a (hopelessly ?) insane person might beg for his " removal " rather than undergo the enormous expense and distress of his residence in an asylum or institution. Where are we to stop ?
Near the close of his article Dr. Roberts has a rather difficult sentence with reference to the dependence of doctors on fees paid by their patients. It is not clear whether he means that as fees would be lost if the patient died, the doctor would be very reluctant to terminate the case, or that, on the other hand, he would expect a large fee for carrying out the reversal of his normal and sworn duty. Neither interpretation is very complimentary to those of the profession who might be willing to follow Dr. Roberts's lead.
The primary question as put forward by Dr. Roberts is not whether a Court set up for the purpose may grant a warrant to set aside the Law as it ordinarily exists, but whether the doctor is right or wrong, in absence of any such warrant, to constitute himself judge, jury, and executioner. The answer emphatically is in the negative.
are certain But there are certain considerations which call for serious thought in the absence-of legislitiOn to permit what one may call commiserative homicide. If it is conceded for the sake of argument that a doctor may, under some possible conditions and on his own responsibility, confer death on a patient, will the ordinary person feel the same perfect confidence in con- sulting him and in telling him frankly his condition of health, his family history, his secret fears, and so on, if he has at the back of his mind the lurking dread that in the course of some dispirited remarks, made when in a depressed state of spirits, he may make use of expressions which might be regarded as justification for his annihilation ? And this all the more if his wife or his son or some other of his near relatives should support his gloomy prognostications and hasty petitions. How can a patient have that real confidence in his medical adviser which is the basis of confident and confidential relations between the two if there is the remotest possibility that his guardian might be persuaded to adopt a totally different and contradictory role ? I speak as one who has been definitely requested to take certain surgical steps in the case of a diabetic young man, which I had explained to his mother would almost certainly result in a fatal issue. She knew this and still persisted in requesting my intervention ; I then discovered that she had herself tried (but so far failed) to bring about a fatal issue by feeding her son with forbidden sugars and sweets, but had great hopes of success (!) if I would do as she requested. I considered that my duty was to act in my patient's interests, not in his mother's.
Another—and I admit a minor point, but one of consider- able importance, too—is : How would such contemplated action as wilfully hastening an expected death be regarded by an Insurance Company ? A sum of £1,000 is to be paid to his relatives on the death of Mr. X, but if Mr. X's death has been hastened by the wilful action of another person, why should the Company pay ? The case is further strengthened if the relatives of Mr. X have been parties to the arrangements for his earlier decease, and are themselves the beneficiaries. Should the public generally, and the Insurance Companies in particular, get it into their minds that it is even possible that the family doctor may sometimes be induced even by ",good motives to hasten the fatal issue, would not the Courts be choked with eases in which the Company refused to pay ? The door would be- open for much litigation and much scandal.
I refrain from discussing at this time the closely related questions of abortion and contraception. As Dr. Roberts says, it is impossible to draw a limiting line between the one problem and the other : they are all on one slope and that a slippery one.
The point might be argued : Would it be right to introduce
legislation to permit hastening an impending result, after unequivocal and convincing evidence has been produced both of the certainty of the end and of the active acquiescence of the person himself and/or his relatives? For my own part I should be absolutely opposed to any such legislation, which I should regard as immoral, whether in relation to euthanasia, to removal of " undesirables," to abortion, or to birth control. Certainly, without the shelter which such °legislation would give any doctor who takes the ?Ole of " executioner " of his own unsupported decision is, to put it mildly, very unwise, and his action in the opinion of very many definitely wrong. ".Hard cases make bad law."—I am, Sir, &c., 4 Grosvenor Street, Edinburgh. Wurr1s GEORGE SYM.
Previous page
