Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

AMA continues to oppose your rights

By Neil Francis - posted Thursday, 1 December 2016


 

Despite the gratuitous change of a few words after a year of 'research,' the statement remains unchanged.

Doctors and the public have a right to ask, "What part of the evidence that there is a genuine diversity of respectable views, did you miss?"

Advertisement

Failure to respect diversity

The executive might argue that it did listen. Here are its statements about diversity:

Previous (2007) statement 'Revised' (2016) statement
"The AMA recognises that there are divergent views regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide." "The AMA recognises there are divergent views within the medical profession and the broader community in relation to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide."

 

 

Despite an increase in wordiness, this statement too remains unchanged.

The AMA executive says it recognises that there are divergent views, but by continuing to insist that no doctor should be involved in assisted dying, it reveals that it doesn't respect some of them. How does it justify this hubris?

Advertisement

Failure to respect the patient

The revised policy also says in part:

Doctors should … endeavour to uphold the patient's values, preferences and goals of care.

The sting in the policy tail is, given the AMA's wholly opposed stance toward assisted dying, that the doctor should only uphold patient values, preferences and goals of care if the AMA executive approves of them.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Neil Francis runs DyingForChoice.com, a website dedicated to reporting facts and exposing misinformation about assisted dying. He is a past President of the World Federation of Right To Die Societies. He was Foundation Chair and CEO of YourLastRight.com and a past President and CEO of Dying With Dignity Victoria.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Neil Francis
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy