Other content recommended for you
- Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on medical law
- Ms B and Diane Pretty: a commentary
- Patient fails in attempt to get law on aiding suicide abroad clarified
- Ethics briefings
- Dying woman loses her battle for assisted suicide
- High Court throws out “suicide aid” case
- Making a case for the inclusion of refractory and severe mental illness as a sole criterion for Canadians requesting medical assistance in dying (MAiD): a review
- Canadian French and English newspapers’ portrayals of physicians’ role and medical assistance in dying (MAiD) from 1972 to 2016: a qualitative textual analysis
- Organ donation after medical assistance in dying or cessation of life-sustaining treatment requested by conscious patients: the Canadian context
- Impact of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) on family caregivers
Jump to comment:
Dr Lewis raises the important issue of what the rules of debate should be in electronic correspondence.
As an editor, I feel as if I am caught in the maelstrom of evolution. The web has radically changed the nature of debate and the presentation of information and knowledge. It is not clear to me how and whether it should be controlled. My general approach has been to let the experiment run in a free way and look...
At the time of writing there appears to have been no electronic submissions to the Journal of Medical Ethics. It seems appropriate, therefore, to begin electronic correspondence with a consideration of some of the ethical implications of this new form of ethical dialogue.
I have posted this response to Kenneth Boyd’s editorial on ‘Mrs. Pretty and Ms B’  as this article may provoke debate...