David Shaw presents a new argument to support the old claim that there is not a significant moral difference between killing and letting die and, by implication, between active and passive euthanasia. He concludes that doctors should not make a distinction between them. However, whether or not killing and letting die are morally equivalent is not as important a question as he suggests. One can justify legal distinctions on non-moral grounds. One might oppose physician- assisted suicide and active euthanasia when (...) performed by doctors on patients whether or not one is in favour of the legalisation of assisted suicide and active euthanasia. Furthermore, one can consider particular actions to be contrary to appropriate professional conduct even in the absence of legal and ethical objections to them. Someone who wants to die might want only a doctor to kill him or to help him to kill himself. However, we are not entitled to everything that we want in life or death. A doctor cannot always fittingly provide all that a patient wants or needs. It is appropriate that doctors provide their expert advice with regard to the performance of active euthanasia but they can and should do so while, qua doctors, they remain hors de combat. (shrink)

At the beginning of the twentieth century, poliomyelitis presented a scientific and medical challenge of a complexity similar to that of AIDS now. Research on polio, mainly in the US, gradually became focussed to solving basic questions, but was held up by the lack of suitable laboratory techniques. The financing of the research and the wide range of basic topics funded were the model for later medical science. The problem of polio, at least in the wealthier temperate countries, has been (...) solved by the use of vaccines. Many fundamental questions about the mechanism of the disease remained unsolved and this lack of knowledge has contributed to many unfortunate accidents. The history of polio has many lessons for AIDS researchers. (shrink)

Death of motor neurones following invasion of the central nervous system by poliovirus may result in paralysis of specific muscles. Virulence may be tested by injection into monkeys by routes which bypass natural infection. Transmissibility is also very important, but cannot be measured, only inferred. An infection may lead to immunity or paralysis. In epidemics, the highest incidence among children 0-2 years was 2% and among those over 10 years was 25%: these figures fit a model of genetic susceptibility of (...) homozygotes and heterozygotes with phenotypic susceptibility increasing with age. Hypogamma-globulinemics, some neonates and pregnant women are more susceptible than others. Intra-muscular injections may increase the risk of paralysis. Strenuous exercise and IM injections given when poliovirus has already reached the spinal cord can increase the severity of paralysis or convert a non-paralytic attack to paralysis. Although vaccines reduced polio in temperate countries, polio was thought to be no problem in the tropics. Since 1977 polio has been recognised as a massive problem in the third world: because it affects babies and very young children, it is properly infantile paralysis. (shrink)

In their account of passive euthanasia, Garrard and Wilkinson present arguments that might lead one to overlook significant moral differences between killing and letting die. To kill is not the same as to let die. Similarly, there are significant differences between active and passive euthanasia. Our moral duties differ with regard to them. We are, in general, obliged to refrain from killing each and everyone. We do not have a similar obligation to try to prevent each and everyone from dying. (...) In any case, to be morally obliged to persist in trying to prevent their deaths would be different from being morally obliged to refrain from killing all other people even if we had both obligations. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Philologus Heft: Ahead of print.

In his paper , Culyer talks about “values” and “value judgments” in relation to equity.1 He says: “The focus is on equity in the allocation of health care resources .... These are value laden questions because any idea of “equity” must embody value judgments about what it is that makes for a good society”. He says too: “Equity in health care policy, as in other arenas of policy, is a question of ethics and therefore of values”.I disagree with this way (...) of talking: it suggests a sort of “postmodernist” moral relativism. It sounds as if there might be, say, socialist beliefs which were vouched for by socialist values while …. (shrink)