WHOSE LIFE IS IT ANYWAY?

Just as the abortion issue raged in the 20th century, the euthanasia debate
will gather speed in the next millenium.

Although the medical profession largely retains its conservative stance on
this hugely contentious subject, 20 American states are currently
considering right to die legistlation, while closer to home, Holland is
said to have a turn a blind eye to assisted deaths.

But whatever about the right to die, should terminally ill patients have
the right to control their own pain, even if the methods used will shorten
their life?

The issue was raised recently when terminally ill Motor Neurone sufferer
Annie Lindsell went to court in the UK seeking a declaration that her
doctor could lawfully administer diamorphine in the final weeks of her life.

While diamorphine would ease Ms Lindsell's suffering, it could also hasten
her death.

The case which was withdrawn when her GP received an assurance that he
could administer the drug without fear of legal reprisal was hailed as
bringing us a step nearer to euthanasia.

But it's been viewed by many in the medical profession as a political move,
a deliberate attempt by euthanasia campaigner Ms Lindsell to highlight the
issue once more before she dies.

According to Cormac McNamara, president of the European Union of General
Practitioners, Ireland's attitude to the issue is currently the same as in
Britain.

"There is a longestablished principle in medical practice called the
double effect principle, where it is deemed perfectly proper to administer
medication necessary to ease the pain of a terminally ill patient, even if
you can predict that it will contribute to a shortening of their life. In
fact it is the obligation of every doctor to use ordinary means to preserve
life.

"The issue brought up in this case is already provided for in law and in
medicine and any doctor could have told them that. Nothing new has been
learned," he says.

However, while administering ordinary drugs is the obligation of every
doctor, cases such as Ms Lindsell's must still be viewed as contentious.

This is borne out by the continuing debate over the use of cannabis for
medical reasons.

There have been various cases in Britain concerning the issue, and Paddy
Doyle, author of 'The God Squad', pursued the matter here last summer.

While the medical profession refuses to concede any possible benefits of
cannabis to seriously ill patients for fear of an overspill into the
general population, Doyle felt differently.

Suffering from ideopathic torsion dystonia (which causes constant
involuntary movement in his body and for which no cure has been found) he
claims to have found marijuana beneficial on the one or two occasions he
has taken it.

However, a letter to thenMinister for Justice Nora Owen, which was passed
onto thenMinister for Health Michael Noonan, met with nothing more than a
standard response pointing to the lack of evidence about the drug's medical
benefits.

"I have stated over and over again that I want to use marijuana for medical
purposes only, and that I am willing to be monitored when I use it," he says.

"I feel that controlling your pain is a matter of choice and a personal
right," says Paddy.