natashaloder

Hello! Really excited to be here and looking forward to all the questions. So I'm going to take the question about the TPP (trade discussions). So The Economist is often thought of as a Business magazine but in fact we have a front half full of international reporting that covers everything from health to politics. The back half of the magazine also has a science, technology and books and arts section. We don't see a cover as either or. Assisted suicide is an issue the magazine is interested in and decided to back it. If you are asking me why, this week, we had the results of the survey in--which is news.

Oh, that is a really good one. Um.... I would ask a question. If society thinks that he is going to escape proper punishment then one would have to refuse surely?

Also in answer to your question about trust. That will depend on the doctor and the patient, surely? If I am desperate to die because I am in physical agony and my doctor could help but refuses, not much trust there for me. The doctor is supposed to heal, but if they can't heal because there isn't a cure does that mean they can't help? No. They give non-curative treatments all the time. So the role is to aid those in pain as well.

OK, so I do think differently from Helen who is a bit more of a softy liberal than me. I think that if death is a means to escape punishment i.e. they want it. Then they don't have that "right" as they are a prisoner.

Medical Associations tend to be quite conservative. But I think that the response of the California Medical Association to the proposed legislation is quite informative. I'll paste a little from their press release:

Today, the California Medical Association (CMA) announced that it has become the first state medical association in the nation to change its position on the long-debated issue of physician aid in dying.By removing decades-old organizational policy, CMA has eliminated its historic opposition and is now officially neutral on Senate Bill 128 (Monning/Wolk), the End of Life Option Act.

“As physicians, we want to provide the best care possible for our patients. However, despite the remarkable medical breakthroughs we’ve made and the world-class hospice or palliative care we can provide, it isn’t always enough,” said Luther F. Cobb, M.D., CMA president. “The decision to participate in the End of Life Option Act is a very personal one between a doctor and their patient, which is why CMA has removed policy that outright objects to physicians aiding terminally ill patients in end of life options. We believe it is up to the individual physician and their patient to decide voluntarily whether the End of Life Option Act is something in which they want to engage. Protecting that physician-patient relationship is essential.” http://www.cmanet.org/news/press-detail/?article=california-medical-association-removes