Search

Guidelines provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions suggest that anyone assisting another to commit suicide in England and Wales, or elsewhere, will not be prosecuted provided there are no self-seeking motives and no active encouragement. This reflects the position in Switzerland. There, however, no difference is made between assistance and inducement. In addition, the Swiss approach makes it possible to establish organisations to assist the suicides of both their citizens and foreign visitors. It should not be assumed that this approach is without controversy in Switzerland. Proposals for reform continue to be debated there, not least because of the concern about some of the actual practices of certain end-of-life organisations. It is likely that a few English citizens will continue to avail themselves of these services in Switzerland if they cannot find the help they require here. This paper explores the legitimacy of the current restrictive position adopted towards assisted suicide in England. It argues that the provisions within the guidelines prohibiting organisations that assist suicides, leaves some without the help they need. While legislative decriminalisation of assisted suicide and the establishment of state-sponsored suicide centres would represent the most permissive regime, this paper proposes that this would be a step too far. The preference here is for decriminalisation but adopting a 'middle way' between the two extremes: the more permissive approach provided by the 'Swiss model' is one that could be employed here, albeit within a more robust regulatory regime.

Research Questions: Couples undergoing IVF in Switzerland may have embryos in excess of their clinical need that they can donate to human embryonic stem cell research. Thus a new practice has emerged in Switzerland when IVF treatment and embryonic stem cell research come into contact. This interface needs to be investigated from an ethical-legal point of view to facilitate a fair informed choice process for the couples involved., Methods: Ethical analysis, patient perspectives elaboration. Interdisciplinary approach that draws on the research project JESP-ELSI (joint embryonic stem cell research project--ethical legal and societal implications)., Results and Conclusions: To facilitate the donation of surplus embryos to human embryonic stem cell research, we propose a procedure of informed choice that fits to the current Swiss legal situation. In addition we identify problems within the current legal setting and suggest methods to improve communication at the interface between IVF and embryonic stem cell research from an ethical perspective.

In prenatal medicine, the doctrine of informed consent is subject to several restrictions: women are confronted with social expectations to accept screening and tests that entail a pressure to decide. Some authors criticise that the informed consent overstretches the patient, dislocates responsibility to the individual, and, in many cases, is nothing but an empty ritual. The article defends the idea of informed consent. It argues that we need to reinterpret informed consent on the basis of a dialogical principle: the aim is to recognise the subjectivity and vulnerability of the patient in her special situation, which implies a mutual culture of hearing.

Although the moral responsibilities of clinicians and researchers in the new genetics are exhaustively reflected upon, much less attention has been paid to the factors affecting the moral reasoning of non-professionals when they reflect on genetic issues. In this paper, we compare the moral evaluations of somatic gene therapy (SGT) made by some of its potential consumers (patients) and its providers (medical professionals). The results highlight significant differences between professional opinion and non-professional evaluations. Medical professionals shared a moral evaluation of SGT that (a) based its acceptability on a strong therapeutic imperative, (b) grounded this in an unproblematic separation of identity and disability/illness, and (c) generally did not see SGT as ethically different from other medical interventions. Prospective patients (a) often questioned the effectiveness of "therapeutic" interventions, (b) could derive a strong sense of identity from disability/illness, and (c) sometimes saw genetic interventions as changing a person's identity, either directly (through the genes) or indirectly (through altered life experience). We discuss the implications of these differences for the professional and public debate on the ethics of gene therapy. Our results highlight the need to take into account non-professionals' views of SGT.