One of the country’s most well-known Catholic Bishops has expressed concern regarding the removal of the ban on “deliberate killing” from the ethical guidelines of the Irish Medical Council, and questioned whether the Council had decided if it was acceptable to take part in such an act.
Bishop Kevin Doran said the statement has been dropped from the 9th edition of the Guidelines and that he wondered if this was an oversight, “or is it the case that the Medical Council has now decided that it is acceptable for doctors to take part in the deliberate killing of a patient?”.
“Even if assisted suicide were to be legalised, for example, that of itself would never make the killing of patients ethical,” he said in a statement.
The Bishop also told Gript that he had heard that a large number of doctors had expressed concern to the Medical Council on the removal on the prohibition.
He said that there were, “unfortunately, numerous defects in the new edition of the Guide”.
The newly published ethical guidelines given to doctors by the Council no longer contain a prohibition on the deliberate killing of patients. While also updating guidance on conscientious objection, the new ethical code drops guidance around abortion and assisted human reproduction.
Guidance around assisted human reproduction has also been removed from the ethical guidelines by the Irish Medical Council. The obligation that doctors “must not take part in the creation of new forms of human life solely for experimental purposes – You must not engage in human reproductive cloning” – included in previous guidance – has now been scrapped.
The updated Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners – which underpins the values and principles of being a doctor in Ireland – replaces the 8th edition, published in May 2016.
Bishop Doran said that “the sections on Assisted Human Reproduction (47) and Abortion (48), which were in the 8th edition of the Guide, have disappeared from the 9th edition.”
“This would seem to suggest that the Medical Council does not see these very significant areas of activity as involving any ethical questions or risks. Is this simply because the law in these areas has changed. Have actions which were previously unethical, and quite simply “bad medicine”, suddenly become ethical because they are now legal?” he asked.
“Under the heading of Conscientious Objection, I note that the Guide reflects recent legislation on Abortion, in that it requires doctors to “make such arrangements as may be necessary to enable the patient to obtain the required treatment”,” he said.
“I am not sure how it makes sense ethically to require a doctor to assist a patient to access a procedure which the doctor, herself or himself, regards as unethical.
These matters do not only affect doctors. These matters also impact the common good of our society by radically redefining what is “good” for us all.”
The Bishop of Elphin said she had written to the President of the Medical Council seeking clarification, but that his letter had received “neither a reply nor even an acknowledgement”.