Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
How much should ethicists know about the topics they comment on? Is it enough to have a vague idea? Should they be required to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter? Are they required to pay attention to available evidence?
In response to Schuklenk's and Vathorst's proposal that individuals with treatment-resistant depression should have access to assisted dying,1 Christopher Cowley has presented a contrary argument based on comparison with the situation faced by patients with motor neurone disease (MND).2 In Cowley's view, MND is a “non-terminal but untreatable debilitating disease(s)” which “… does not affect the brain”. The basis for using MND for comparison is, presumably, that patients with MND have access to assisted dying despite its ‘non-terminal’ nature.
This argument raises a number of points. Probably the most important of these is that while MND is incurable some treatment with admittedly modest disease-modifying effect is available. It is, however, quite incorrect to say that MND is “non-terminal” and “… does not affect the brain”, as will be demonstrated below.3 This then begs the question of whether or not Cowley's argument is damaged by this invalid comparison, and if so, to what extent. Additionally, there is the problem of discourse outside one's primary area of expertise. To what extent is somebody in Cowley's position required to verify the matters of fact regarding their assertions? What is the duty of the reviewer or editor in this …
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.