THE ARREST, by police investigating the death of an elderly cancer victim, of Newcastle upon Tyne GP Dr Dave Moor, who claims to have helped dozens of patients to die, has again set alight the already-raging and vexed euthanasia debate.
But this involves not just the high-minded moral clash over the sanctity of life, which the law upholds, and the individual's so-called "right to die."
It also involves the practical issue of doctors risking prosecution for acting out of compassion.
So is it not time that the debate was resolved?
Certainly, public opinion seems to have moved towards offering doctors protection by legalising euthanasia.
Now, according to surveys, eight people out of ten would allow it in certain circumstances when, a generation ago, only one in two would.
Perhaps one reason for that shift of mood has been the advance, in the interim, of medical science which has not only lengthened the life-span generally but, in a bitter twist of that noble intention, now enables many terminally-ill people to endure their last days in agony when otherwise they would have been released sooner.
Yet is it the physician's right or duty, even out of conscience or compassion, to use medicine to speed up the inevitable - to obtain what many patients themselves and their families might call a "blessed release?"
Should the law sanction the killing of anyone - even out of mercy?
It would seem that, at present, the law turns a blind eye, or prefers not to know about many such cases, allowing doctors scope to assist death according to their conscience.
And there is also available to them the latitude of the so-called "double effect" principle that allows the administration of drugs without limit to terminally-ill patients, even though they may shorten lives, provided the intention is to relieve suffering and not to kill.
There is, of course, room for well-intentioned pretence - and also abuse - in that precept.
And, as we see from the arrest of Dr Moor, the law as it stands may not offer certainty to doctors who employ the principle on humane grounds.
Surely this risk-laden vagueness should be dispelled - one way or the other.
Is it not time, then, for a thorough examination of the issue to take place, ideally by a Royal Commission, that embraces all viewpoints - moral, medical, religious and practical - so that what is truly an anguished dilemma may be at last dispelled?
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article