DOCTORS AND ETHICS.

Grey River Argus, 14 January 1928, Page 3 (Supplement)

DOCTORS AND ETHICS.

DUTIES TOWARDS PATIENTS. WHEN THERE IS NO HOPE. CONFLICT OF OPINIONS. A doctor giving evidence at a Shef field inquest said that even if there had been hope of saving a man’s life he would hetfte hesitated before trying to do so. The inquiry concerned the death of John Robinson, aged 71, a master asphaltcr. He had been suffering from bronchitis and heart disease. He left a note saying he did not know what to do as he could not sleep and the pain was frightful. Dr A. T. Thompson was called to Robinson, whom he had attended for 20 years. He saw him at 9.30 in the morning. He made a short examination. At 12.30 pan. he saw the man again. The housekeeper then showed his the paper with Robinson’s writing on it, and he formed the opinion that the patient was suffering from the effects of poison. He left after a few minutes. This was several hours before the man’s death. The Coroner, Mr J. Kenyon Parker: Could not anything be done to save the man’s life? Dr Simpson: There was nothing to be done except to let him die, and even if there was anything I could have done I should have hesitated very much before I tried to bring him back to life. The Coroner: You had better be careful what you are saying! Dr Simpson: I have carefully considered the matter and I have no hesitation in making that statement. The Coroner: That is not the general view of medical men, is it? Dr Simpson: I don’t think it is. Dr Godfrey Carter, the police surgeon. said death was due to heart disease, and that the taking of laudanum would only have served to embarrass that disease. The case has given rise to the question: Has a doctor the right by withholding his skill to allow a man to die and make no attempt to save his life when death is considered certain to follow any treatment? Many prominent doctors hold that in hopeless cases where patients are suffering intense pain from a malady which must prove fatal, it is not humane to prolong life by artificial means. Others hold the view that the age-long maxim of the medical profession that “while there is life there is hope,” should never be abandoned under any circumstances. The British Medical Association is understood to hold that the doctor’s mission is to maintain life by every means in his power, but many doctors contend frankly that while their primary duty is to save life, they are engaged upon a mission of mercy and should not hesitate to prevent unnecessary suffering, even if by so doing the patient dies sooner than if other steps had been taken.

Sir William Arbuthnot Lane, the eminent surgeon, in an interview, said:— “Legally, there is no question that the doctor’s duty is to do all in his power to maintain life under all circumstances. Morally, he has an obligation to minister to the needs of a patient and at the same time consider the anguish of the relatives of a person who is slowly dying under the tortures of some dreadful disease. My own view is that the doctor should ‘do unto others as he would be done unto.’ It is the doctor’s duty in such cases to relieve suffering rather than to prolong it. “Take the case of a man who is dying from some disease such as cancer. It is only a question of time and the longer his death is in coming the greater the amount of pain he w’ill suffer. If in his agony he takes more than the normal amount of opium prescribed to deaden the pain I do not think any doctor would interfere. I do not think a doctor’s refusal to submit the man to drastic reactions to overcome the poison would be either unfair or inhuman.” Other doctors strongly expressed the opposite view.