Assisted dying – a summary of the BMA’s position July 2006 At the BMA’s annual conference in Belfast on 29 June 2006, doctors voted by an overwhelming majority against legalising physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. The current policy is therefore that the BMA: (i) believes that the ongoing improvement in palliative care allows patients to die with dignity; (ii) insists that physician-assisted suicide should not be made legal in the UK; (iii) insists that voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK; (iv) insists that non-voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK; and, (v) insists that if euthanasia were legalised, there should be a clear demarcation between those doctors who would be involved in it and those who would not.
How should modern medicine's dramatic new powers to sustain life be employed? How should limited resources be used to extend and improve the quality of life? In this collection, Dan Brock, a distinguished philosopher and bioethicist and co-author of Deciding for Others (Cambridge, 1989), explores the moral issues raised by new ideals of shared decision making between physicians and patients. The book develops an ethical framework for decisions about life-sustaining treatment and euthanasia, and examines how these life and death decisions are transformed in health policy when the focus shifts from what is best for a patient to what is just for all patients. Professor Brock combines acute philosophical analysis with a deep understanding of the realities of clinical health policy. This is a volume for philosophers concerned with medical ethics, health policy professionals, physicians interested in bioethics, and undergraduate courses in biomedical ethics.
Although palliative care and legalised euthanasia are both based on the medical and ethical values of patient autonomy and caregiver beneficence and non-maleficence,1 they are often viewed as antagonistic causes. A popular perception, for instance, is that palliative care is the province of religiously motivated people and the advocacy of euthanasia that of agnostics or atheists.2 3 The European Association for Palliative Care has voiced concerns that legalising euthanasia would be the start of a slippery slope resulting in harm to vulnerable patients such as elderly and disabled people and that it would impede the development of palliative care by appearing as an alternative.4 Data from the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia is legal, do not provide any evidence of a slippery slope.5 6 Here, we focus on the effect of the process of legalisation of euthanasia on palliative care and vice versa by reviewing the published historical, regulatory, and epidemiological evidence
John Coggon The German National Ethics Council has recently published its Opinion on Self- Determination and Care at the End of Life. 1 The Opinion raises and attempts to resolve issues that are troubling many people in many jurisdictions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the well-rehearsed range of views on euthanasia, assisted-suicide, suicide, and care for the dying, the Council’s Opinion is neither extreme in its suppositions nor in its proposals. This may not satisfy campaigners and commentators who sit on the polar edges of the debate, but it represents a predictable compromise, and will satisfy medical practitioners and those who are increasingly concerned with the inadequacy of palliative care for the elderly, the dying, and the chronically sick.
The National Ethics Council has intensively discussed the issues involved in dealing responsibly with dying. It has perused a large volume of material, obtained expert opinions, consulted with doctors and other medical specialists, and held meetings in Augsburg and Münster at which it exposed itself to public debate. The outcome is enshrined in the Opinion now presented. Self-determination and care at the end of life continues the examination of the themes addressed in the Opinion The advance directive published in June 2005. The present analysis, in conjunction with the clarification of terminology here proposed, may facilitate interpretation of the recommendations set out in that Opinion.
Comprehensive guidance for doctors on care at the end of life, including difficult decisions on when to provide, withhold, or withdraw life prolonging treatment, will go out for consultation from the UK’s General Medical Council in March. The draft guidance was approved by the council at its February meeting, subject to minor amendments. The consultation will be launched in the week beginning 23 March and will end in July. The new advice takes account of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; government strategies on end of life care in England and Scotland; GMC guidance in 2007 on consent; recent research; and a Court of Appeal judgment on a legal challenge to the GMC’s 2002 guidance Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatments (Burke).
[W]hy is there such intense pressure to legalise medically assisted suicide or euthanasia? In the past 5 years in the UK there have been three bills introduced into the House of Lords seeking to legalise “assisted dying” in England and Wales; none has made progress and the last one was roundly defeated on a vote in 2006. Yet, despite Parliament's clear lack of appetite to change the law in this area, campaigners have redoubled their efforts, and the main pressure group (Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) is constantly presenting its case in the media.
Coggon’s remarks on a previous paper on active and passive euthanasia elicit a clarification and an elaboration of the argument in support of the claim that there is a moral difference between killing and letting die. The relevant moral duties are different in nature, strength and content. Moreover, not all people who are involved in the relevant situations have the same moral duties. The particular case that is presented in support of the claim that to kill is not the same as to let die is based upon a rejection of consequentialism.
There is no justification for a claim that Christianity must oppose the assisted death of a person who has made their own decision to die, provided that such a person can convince others that their desire to die is fully considered. I will make this argument given two conditions: first that the person is capable of making an educated decision, and second that their end-of-life experience includes full access to both pastoral and medical care.
Subsequent to an intensive three-year period of reflection, the CMQ is revealing its perspective and conclusions today regarding end-of-life care and euthanasia. The CMQ embraces the point of view of the patient who is confronting imminent and inevitable death. In such a situation, the patient looks to their physician and generally requests that they be able to die without undue suffering and with dignity. Neither surveys, nor attorneys, nor politicians can properly advise the physician and the patient facing this situation. In the majority of cases, the patient and their doctor find the appropriate analgesia that respects the ethical obligation of physicians not to preserve life at any cost, but rather, when the death of a patient appears to be inevitable, to act so that it occurs with dignity and to ensure that the patient obtains the appropriate support and relief.