*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Passive euthanasia no better than active

by
02 March 2011

iStock

Name and address supplied

Sir, — Canon Robin Gill’s article on having achieved the correct fineness of balance I find a little misleading (Comment, 25 February). As someone who sits on the BMA ethics committee, he must be aware that passive euthanasia is an accepted, even recommended, practice in hospices and hospitals.

The current so-called euthanasia debate is all about active euthanasia, ending a life by positive actions. Nothing is ever said about passive ending of life; yet it happens, and not infrequently.

The GMC in its current guidelines (Treatment and Care Towards the End of Life: Good practice in decision making, 1 July 2010) to doctors states that nutrition and hydration provided by tube or drip are regarded in law as medical treatment, and should be treated in the same way as other medical interventions. If a patient is expected to die within hours or days, and you consider that the burdens of providing clinically assisted nutrition or hydration outweigh the benefits they are likely to bring, it will not usually be appropriate to start or continue treatment.

In effect, this means that a patient who is deemed to be near the end of his or her life and may well be unconscious — perhaps because of pain-reducing medication — can have nutrition and hydration removed. In theory, this is only deployed when a patient is near the end of life. In practice, this can mean as long as five weeks without food or drink. Withdrawal should be reviewed, but I have heard doctors rehearse the arguments to continue withholding nutrition and hydration rather than “risk” the patient’s coming round.

Despite the Mental Capacity Act, which requires the consideration of the best interest of the patient, the patient is rarely involved in the decision-making: rather, the next-of-kin, at a tremendously vulnerable time, is called upon to make a decision in a capacity far beyond his or her ability. It is passive, not active, but it is still euthanasia.

If passive euthanasia is seen as the appropriate action, why should we not have the moral courage to enact active euthanasia? If we cannot go this extra step, then the practice of this form of passive euthanasia —disguised as “withholding treatment” — should be brought to an end.

“We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us.”

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Letters to the editor

Letters for publication should be sent to letters@churchtimes.co.uk.

Letters should be exclusive to the Church Times, and include a full postal address. Your name and address will appear alongside your letter.

Forthcoming Events

6-7 September 2022
Preaching as Pilgrimage conference
From the College of Preachers.

27-28 September 2022
humbler church Bigger God conference
The HeartEdge Conference in Manchester includes the Theology Slam Live Final.

More events

The Church Times Archive

Read reports from issues stretching back to 1863, search for your parish or see if any of the clergy you know get a mention.

FREE for Church Times subscribers.

Explore the archive

Welcome to the Church Times

​To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four* articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)

*Until the end of June: we’re doubling the number of free articles to eight, to celebrate the publication of our Platinum Jubilee double issue.