The Right to Life: Who Is to Decide?

Abstract

The breakdown in the traditional physician-patient relationship in recent years has precipitated an avalanche of malpractice suits that call the basic ethics of clinical practice onto the stand. When does medical judgment become negligence? Must patient consent always be obtained before treatment is applied? How much does a patient have a right to know when the prognosis is negative? Must the physician always regard communication with a patient as privileged? But the current revolution in medical ethics goes far beyond just the doctorpatient relationship. It stems from recent advances in basic medical research, such as organ transplants, prolonging the life of terminal patients, prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases and artificial insemination. To confront such questions and try to find intelligent ways of dealing with them, various groups have sprung up in the last year or so. One of the largest and most active is the Institute of Society, Ethics and Life Sciences in Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. (the Hastings Center). From Oct. 11 through 14 the Hastings Center, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, brought together some 85 scientists, philosophers, lawyers and theologians in Warrenton, Va., to tackle ethical questions raised by genetic counseling or screening and prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities and genetic diseases. Genetic screening and prenatal diagnosis are being sought by an increasing number of couples. The listing of chromosome abnormalities and genetic diseases that can be diagnosed from fetal cells withdrawn by amniocentesis (from the mother's abdomen) expands Murray: Opposes mass screening.