Dr. Louise Campbell:

It was, indeed, a blunt and bald statement. I am not generally a friend of the blunt and bald statement, but I was not implying that the shift included an endorsement of the doctor's role in assisting patients to die. I should have been a little more circumspect in what I wrote in that section. However, there undeniably has been a shift in the way we regard the role of medicine at the end of patients' lives. In 1995-96, in a case involving a ward of court, a family had to take a hospital to court to have ventilatory support for their daughter removed after 22 or 23 years. The guide to professional conduct and ethics for registered medical practitioners now emphasises that a doctor is under no obligation to provide treatment which is clinically judged to be futile, burdensome or disproportionate. In the 20 years since the court case there has been an evolution in what a doctor can and cannot do on the issue of allowing a patient to die. This evolution has taken longer in some jurisdictions than others. North America is an example. There was a belief the healing role of a doctor was to keep patients alive. Since the advent of palliative care we have a different, more nuanced understanding of the role of the doctor and medicine in general. It is now not just to heal or provide curative treatment but also to promote health and relieve suffering. Allowing a person to die at his or her request by removing ventilatory support was anathema to medical professionals 50 or 60 years ago and this was the attitude in Ireland even more recently. It is now an accepted part of the role of a doctor to seek a patient's consent based on his or her understanding of the value of his or her life, whatever the condition or the treatment for it.

Does that answer the question?