Get the facts right: time for evidence-based ethics

How much should ethicists know about the topics they comment on? Is it enough to have a vague idea? Should they be required to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter? Are they required to pay attention to available evidence? In response to Schuklenk's and Vathorst's proposal that individuals with treatment-resistant depression should have access to assisted dying,1 Christopher Cowley has presented a contrary argument based on comparison with the situation faced by patients with motor neurone disease (MND).2 In Cowley's view, MND is a "non-terminal but untreatable debilitating disease(s)" which "... does not affect the brain". The basis for using MND for comparison is, presumably, that patients with MND have access to assisted dying despite its ‘non-terminal’ nature. This argument raises a number of points. Probably the most important of these is that while MND is incurable some treatment with admittedly modest disease-modifying effect...
Source: Journal of Medical Ethics - Category: Medical Ethics Authors: Tags: Cardiovascular medicine, Epidemiologic studies, End of life decisions (geriatric medicine), End of life decisions (palliative care), Suicide (psychiatry), Disability, Assisted dying, End of life decisions (ethics), Psychology and medicine, Suicide (public Source Type: research