In the panel discussion of ethics, only one of the four panelists, Derek Humphry, the president of the Euthanasia Research and Guidance League, approved of euthanasia in practice.
Humphry, who founded the Hemlock Society, has been campaigning for lawful physician aid-in-dying for the terminally ill since 1978, when he helped his terminally ill wife to die.
Panelists and protesters both spoke out against Humphry for his support of euthanasia. Panelists said that physician assisted suicide would be either ineffective, dangerous or ethically wrong.
Sissela Bok, distinguished fellow of the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, said she felt that the desire of people to die was a symptom of the inadequate care that the current medical system supplies. She cited a study asserting that, "70 percent of those polled would prefer palliative care to euthanasia."
Bok said that Palliative care--treatment that alleviates pain and suffering without necessarily relieving the patient's medical condition--is a better solution that euthanasia, but is not made available under our medical system.
"Don't change our position on physician-assisted suicide until [we achieve] a better quality of care for all," she said. "There should never be medical treatment that does not pass muster as moral treatment as well."
Elements of this view was shared by other panelists, such as Lynn Peterson, the director of educational programs and clinical ethics at Harvard Medical School, and George Annas '67, chair of the health law department at the Boston University School of Public Health.
Peterson said he felt allowing doctors to consider suicide as an option for a patient would undermine their ability to cure that patient. This fear was especially present due to the huge hold profitability has in HMOs, he said.
"When you get to the issues where economic efficiency might dictate the end of life I get very worried," he said.
Peterson said euthanasia would be considered less desirable an option if there should be more availability of care for patients.
"We can get the technology easily, but it is hard to get the care," he said.
Annas said that less time should be spent discussing euthanasia and more should be devoted to improving the quality of care.
"The whole debate is a cry for help, a symptom," he said.
Annas used slides and humor to argue that the debate on euthanasia was too insignificant to deserve discussion.
"What's all this about the right to die? We're all going to die," he said. "That's one right that I would like to waive."
Attendants of the conference said they believed that the event allowed people on both sides of the debate to present their views.
"I was impressed by how they examined both sides of the issues," said Katrina Pignone, a student at the Extension School. "I've been to other conferences that were much more one-sided."
Michael P. Herman '00 said he found that the controversy was both unavoidable and perhaps beneficial.
"The first day really brought home the impact of the issue to me, especially when I saw the protesters," he said. "That together with the academic discussion made a great synthesis. You can't really even think about this issue and avoid the emotion inherent in it."