Advertisement
Advertisement

Doctors give support to euthanasia

Quinton Chan

About six in 10 SAR doctors support euthanasia and would comply with a patient's request to turn off a life-support system, a ground-breaking survey found.

In the first survey on the subject, researchers found general acceptance of euthanasia among doctors and the public.

Fifty-nine per cent of 1,187 doctors surveyed - more than one-fifth of all doctors in the SAR - said mercy killing should not be against the law. Only 20 per cent said it should be unlawful.

In addition, 73 per cent told the City University researchers that terminally ill patients had the right to decide to die and 61 per cent said euthanasia should be acceptable in today's society.

A total of 60 per cent said they would agree to a terminally ill patient's request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment.

Active methods to end a patient's life - such as lethal injection - drew far less support. Nevertheless, 28 per cent of doctors said they would support such means.

In terms of non-voluntary euthanasia - for patients in a coma - 39 per cent of doctors said they would agree to a request by a patient's family to let the person die.

The survey dovetailed its findings by asking 618 households the same questions and found the public was even more supportive of mercy killing.

Sixty-six per cent said euthanasia should not be unlawful. Active euthanasia drew support from 60 per cent, while 48 per cent backed non-voluntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia is regarded by most countries as a serious crime. The Netherlands is one exception.

In Hong Kong, turning off life-support machines or prescribing life-ending drugs is considered murder.

However, the Hospital Authority has a 'do not resuscitate' guideline which allows doctors not to perform 'futile' resuscitation on a dying patient with their prior consent.

The survey shows more support for euthanasia exists in Hong Kong than in many Western countries.

A study in Australia in 1996 showed nine out of 10 doctors were strongly opposed, while another in Britain in 1997 found only one-third of doctors were supportive.

The study, conducted by Fok Shiu-yeu and Professor Alice Chong Ming-lin of City University and Dr Tang Kwok-cho of the University of Sydney, was completed in June. It was funded by the Hospital Authority's Health Services Research Committee.

Ms Fok, a senior social science lecturer, said people's attitudes were more open than expected.

She said the Government should initiate a debate on the issue since public understanding was limited.

'The Government and the community should take up this issue seriously and set up a forum for vigorous deliberation on the legal, medical and ethical implications of euthanasia,' she said.

Ho Hei-wah, spokesman of the Patients' Rights Association, said there should be clearer rules on euthanasia.

'There are many grey areas between different forms of euthanasia. We need some better definitions on the subject,' he said.

But Professor Leung Ping-chung, chairman of the Medical Council's ethics committee, strongly opposes the idea of active euthanasia.

He said existing guidelines on treating terminally ill patients were adequate and euthanasia was not a priority among the medical profession.

A Health and Welfare Bureau spokeswoman said it would study the survey in detail. 'The Government will need to take into account the views of the community as a whole, including specific patient groups and the legal and medical profession.'

Post