The New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 363, August 2010) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:

• “Suicide-Related Events in Patients Treated with Antiepileptic Drugs” by A. Arana, C. E. Wentworth, J. L. Ayuso-Mateos, and F. M. Arellano, 542-551.

According to a recent Léger Marketing survey, an extraordinarily high proportion of Quebeckers – 71 per cent – favour decriminalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. This, in a province that’s been the major bastion of Catholicism in North America for so many decades. The question is so complex, and so deeply fraught with moral issues and potential abuses, that it’s difficult to understand why so many people can opt for a radical solution without being, at least, a little anxious about the consequences of their choice. The Globe and Mail

A group of medical specialists is speaking out against euthanasia ahead of a Quebec-wide consultation on the controversial practice, warning that previous attempts at legislation elsewhere in the world have failed. (CBC News)

There are so many developments on the euthanasia front in the UK this week that they are best grouped together. (BioEdge)

There is expected to be a major step toward so-called “Dying with Dignity” laws in Victoria today.

The Greens MP Colleen Hartland plans to introduce a motion to the the Upper House of Parliament seeking a review of the 22 year old Medical Treatment Act. (ABC News)

In the first of its kind in recent memory, a woman had sought the high court’s permission to die (voluntary euthanasia) claiming that she is not willing to live a life of heavy pain and misery. (The Times of India)

In June 2010, Bloc MP Francine Lalonde’s private member’s bill seeking to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide was soundly defeated 228 votes to 59. But the issue is still very much alive, especially in Quebec. In December 2009, the Quebec Legislative Assembly authorized the Health and Social Services Commission to undertake a consultation on the question of “dying with dignity.” The public consultation phase of this enquiry is currently taking place. (The Mark)

A man with “locked-in syndrome” has begun legal action, asking the director of public prosecutions to clarify the law on so-called mercy killing. (BBC News)

South Korean doctors will be allowed to remove life support from terminally ill patients after confirming their wish to die, under new medical guidelines on mercy killing. (MSN)

When Rep. Earl Blumenauer pitched the idea of reimbursing doctors for end-of-life counseling last year to Congress, it met its demise after Sarah Palin claimed it would amount to setting up “death panels” that decided whether someone was worthy of getting health care. (CNBC)

Prof David Jones said that if society agrees that it is in some people’s interests for them to end their own lives, it is difficult to resist the logical conclusion that others should be helped to die even if they have not made such a request. (Telegraph)

In a landmark ruling that will make it easier for people to allow relatives and other loved ones to die, Germany’s highest court ruled Friday that it was not a criminal offense to cut off life-sustaining treatment for a patient. (New York Times)

Assisted suicide is illegal in the state of Connecticut. But two doctors have sought to circumvent the law by requesting that the administration of lethal agents to terminally ill patients be classed as “aid in dying” rather than assisted suicide. The doctors’ lawyers reportedly drew the distinction as follows: (Practical Ethics)

There haven’t been many times when I have been at a loss for words when conducting an interview as a medical reporter. This was one of those moments. (CNN)

Almost half of deaths by euthanasia in Belgium have involved patients who have not explicitly requested their lives to be ended by a doctor, a study has suggested. A fifth of nurses interviewed by researchers admitted that they had been involved in the euthanasia of a patient based on the “assumption” they would want to die. Nearly half of the nurses - 120 of 248 - admitted they had taken part in “terminations without request or consent”. (Vancouver Sun)

Those in favour of assisted suicide argue that opposing assisted suicide will condemn terminally-ill people to suffer needlessly. The Not Dead Yet UK’s charter includes a commitment to oppose any changes to existing laws which state that assisting a patient to commit suicide is illegal. (BBC News)

Dying patients are being refused pain-relief because nurses fear they will be prosecuted for assisted suicide, a poll has found. (Mail Online)

Journal of Medical Ethics (Volume 36, Number 5, May 2010) is now available by subscription only.

Articles Include:

• “Paternalism in Practice: Informing Patients About Expensive Unsubsidised Drugs” by Tim Dare, Mike Findlay, Peter Browett, Karen Amies, and Sarah Anderson, 260-264.
• “Failure to Discount for Conflict of Interest When Evaluating Medical Literature: A Randomised Trial of Physicians” by Gabriel K. Silverman, George F. Loewenstein, Britta L. Anderson, Peter A. Ubel, Stanley Zinberg, and Jay Schulkin, 265-270.
• “Is Supervised Community Treatment Ethically Justifiable?” by Eric Dale, 271-274.
• “Selling Orthodontic Need: Innocent Business Decision or Guilty Pleasure?” by Marc Bernard Ackerman, 275-278.
• “Ethical and Existential Challenges Associated with a Cancer Diagnosis” by Jan Pascal and Ruth Endacott, 279-283.
• “When Enough is Enough; Terminating Life-Sustaining Treatment at the Patient’s Request: A Survey of Attitudes Among Swedish Physicians and the General Public” by Anna Lindblad, Niklas Juth, Carl Johan Fürst, and Niels Lynöe, 284-289.
• “Justifying Terminal Care by ‘Retrospective Quality-Adjusted Life-Years’” by Christopher Cowley, 290-292.
• “Enhancement’s Place in Medicine” by Patricia D. Scripko, 293-296.
• “The Ethical Physician Encounters International Medical Travel” by G.K.D. Crozier and Françoise Baylis, 297-301.
• “Understanding General Practitioners’ Conflicts of Interests and the Paramountcy Principle in Safeguarding Children” by Paul Wainwright and Ann Gallagher, 302-305.
• “Assisted Suicide and the KIlling of People? Maybe. Physician-Assisted Suicide and the Killing of Patients? No: The Rejection of Shaw’s New Perspective on Euthanasia” by Hugh V. MchLachlan, 306-309.
• “Moral Distress Related to Ethical Dilemmas Among Spanish Podiatrists” by Marta Elena Losa Iglesias, Ricardo Becerro de Bengoa Vallejo, and Paloma Salvadores Fuentes, 310-314.
• “Scientific Dishonesty - Questionnaire to Doctoral Students in Sweden” by Tore Nilstun, Rurik Lömark, and Anita Lundqvist, 315-318.
• “Forensic DNA Databases: Genetic Testing as a Societal Choice” by Annemie Patyn and Kris Dierckx, 319-320.

Those who champion assisted suicide laws like the one we have in Oregon, tend to claim that there exists a “Right to Die.” The Death With Dignity National Center, an organization that seeks to enact assisted suicide laws throughout the country, argues on its website that “the greatest human freedom is to live, and die, according to one’s own desires and beliefs.” (Italics mine — sentiments not.) Jack Kevorkian, perhaps the country’s most prominent spokesman for assisted suicide laws, also couches his rhetoric in terms of “rights.” The right to die, these advocates would seem to say, is right up there with the right to free speech, to freedom of conscience, and to freedom of assembly. (True/Slant)

There are not enough solid organs available to meet the needs of patients with organ failure. Thousands of patients every year die on the waiting lists for transplantation. Yet there is one currently available, underutilized, potential source of organs. Many patients die in intensive care following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment whose organs could be used to save the lives of others. At present the majority of these organs go to waste. [Premium (International Association of Bioethics)

The mandate from the American Board of Anesthesiologists reflects its leaders’ belief that “we are healers, not executioners,” board secretary Mark A. Rockoff said. Although the American Medical Association has long opposed doctor involvement, the anesthesiologists’ group is the first to say it will harshly penalize a health-care worker for abetting lethal injections. The loss of certification would prevent an anesthesiologist from working in most hospitals. (Washington Post)