GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: UK star surgeon backs euthanasia despite danger of elder abuse | BioEdge

sábado, 20 de mayo de 2017

BioEdge: UK star surgeon backs euthanasia despite danger of elder abuse | BioEdge | Saturday, May 20, 2017 |

BioEdge: UK star surgeon backs euthanasia despite danger of elder abuse

| BioEdge | Saturday, May 20, 2017 |

UK star surgeon backs euthanasia despite danger of elder abuse

by Michael Cook | 19 May 2017 |

A renowned British neurosurgeon has strongly backed euthanasia and assisted suicide in the second volume of his memoirs, even if there is “collateral damage”. Henry Marsh has just published Admissions: A Life in Brain Surgery. Mr Marsh (surgeons in the UK are called Mister rather than Doctor) was famous for operating on the brain with only a local anaesthetic to minimize damage to neural structures. A talented writer as well, he is well-known in the media.

He told the London Times in an interview about his latest book that he was exasperated by opposition to liberalising end-of-life legislation and described it as “grotesque”.

One of the most powerful arguments in the armoury of opponents of euthanasia is fear of elder abuse, that vulnerable older people will be made to feel that death is obligation for them. Mr Marsh pooh-poohs this notion.

"They argue that grannies will be made to commit suicide," he said. "Even if a few grannies get bullied into it, isn't that the price worth praying for all the people who could die with dignity?"

Saturday, May 20, 2017

The Economist is the world’s best news magazine. Its stylish, intelligent and well-informed coverage has made it the Bible of the global elite. “I used to think. Now I just read The Economist,” the former CEO of Oracle, Larry Ellison, once said.

Part of its appeal is its ideological consistency. Ever since 1843 The Economist has argued that aim of public policy should be to promote the market economy as the best way of achieving prosperity and democracy. A light touch of government regulation is needed only to ensure fairness and legal certainty. Thus it embodies the “classical 19th-century Liberal ideas” which made Britain, and later the United States, a bulwark of capitalism.

Whatever the merits of this ideology in framing public policy for economics and finance, it is ill-suited to questions of personal behaviour.

In principle The Economist supports all autonomous action which is either harmless (in its view) or profitable. Hence, in recent years it has thrown its considerable prestige behind campaigns for the legalisation and regulation of drugs, pornography, prostitution, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage.

And this month it has taken up cudgels in favour of an international market in surrogate mothers and babies. “Carrying a child for someone else should be celebrated—and paid”, is the defiant headline of its editorial. Given the magazine’s influence, this is a significant development. What do you think of it?