Doctors in revolt over legalising euthanasia [England]

DOCTORS issued a united plea against legalising “mercy killings” for the first time yesterday, before a crucial parliamentary vote that would allow patients to choose when to die.

The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners abandoned their neutral stance on euthanasia, after an RCP survey that showed three quarters of the profession opposed a change in the law even for a tiny number of terminally ill people. Among palliative care doctors, 95.4 per cent opposed a change in the law.

But backers of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill believe that the national mood is moving their way, with sympathy for high-profile cases such as Diane Pretty’s attempt to win legal backing to end her life.

The Bill, proposed by human rights lawyer Lord Joffe, would enable adults who are suffering “unbearably” as a result of a terminal illness and are of sound mind to die at their own request.

In practice this would mean that a doctor has to hand them a lethal drug. Doctors are also worried about pressures that the option of assisted dying would put on patients who might feel a burden to relatives.

As lobbying on both sides intensified yesterday, the Bill’s supporters released research by three professors of medical law and ethics arguing that it would lead to fewer assisted deaths.

Professor Sheila McLean, director of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University, said: “It is clear that the law as it stands is not a sufficient deterrent to doctors who are acting in secret, without accountability and without adherence to safeguards.”

But the Bill, based on euthansia laws in Oregon, is seen as the thin end of the wedge by a formidable array of opponents, who will take the unusual step of forcing it to a vote in the Lords on Friday.

Speakers to oppose it include the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and Lord Carey of Clifton, his predecessor. Rather than let the Bill proceed to later stages without a vote, as is usual for a Second Reading, they are hoping for a decisive vote against.

Doctors’ leaders feared that their previous failure to take a position on euthanasia was being interpreted as tacit approval for mercy killing.

RCP Fellows were asked whether they disagreed with the proposition: “We believe that with improvements in palliative care, good clinical care can be provided within existing legislation and that patients can die with dignity. A change in legislation is not needed.”

More than 5,000 responded, with 26 per cent in favour of a change and 73.2 per cent against. Challenged by a minority who felt the question was biased, the college launched a second poll, using — to the fury of some Fellows — a question drafted by Lord Joffe. He expected this to produce a very different result.

This time the question was: “Do you believe that a change in legislation is necessary for the small number of terminally ill patients for whom palliative care does not meet their needs?” Strikingly, this produced from 2,144 respondents an almost identical balance of opinion. While 28.1 per cent favoured a change in the law, 71.3 per cent opposed it — only fractionally fewer than in the original ballot.

GPs did not carry out a ballot but discussed the issue in council and concluded: “The RCGP firmly believes that with current improvements in palliative care, good clinical care can be provided within existing legislation. The College is opposed to any change in legislation.”

Last night Deborah Annetts, chief executive of Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) rejected the RCP ballots as a sham. “This was a narrow and rapid consultation on assisted dying,” she said.

“The College gave its members only 48 hours to respond and hence it is very unlikely that this is representative of doctors’ views.

“The consultation seems to have been run with the aim of achieving a pre-ordained result. It was deeply flawed.

“The most recent major survey of all doctors in the UK showed that nearly two thirds of them feel patients and doctors would be better protected by a more transparent law that allowed patient choice,” she said.

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-2174116,00.html

Are you in favour of legalising euthanasia?
A survey of doctors has found that three-quarters of the profession oppose a change in the euthanasia laws, even for a small number of terminally ill patients. But backers of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill - which would enable adults who are suffering "unbearably" to request an end to their life - believe that public opinion is in their favour. Should euthanasia be legalised? Read the article and send us your view using the form below. Your replies will be posted here

My father died in agony in hospital from metasticised prostate cancer in 1990. His screams went ignored by doctors, who did little to alleviate his pain, and caused distress to other dying cancer patients on the ward. Those demi-gods played with his life then, and I don't trust them to be any different today. Brian Naylor, Farnham

I`m a nurse with multiple sclerosis. I come from two perspectives, someone who could suffer themselves and someone who has seen others suffer. Giving people choice in their own deaths is the only civilised option. Doctors should not feel threatened by people wishing to end their own suffering. Sharman Dunn, Brighton

I am in favour of legalised euthanasia. It’s my life and if I had a terminal illness I would make the decision on my death, not the government or any religious nuts. Anthony D'Amato, Sarasota

I am in favour of euthanasia in principle but need assurances about the circumstances under which it will be deemed appropriate. Since when do doctors have to be involved? It takes no credentials to kill, criminals do it all the time. There should be licensed euthanasia technicians who will attend as needed and administer the procedure according to law. This should be a legal and ethical discussion not a medical one. Anthony Pollock, Winnersh

I oppose euthanasia on religious grounds; no one has the right to take their life. "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away". No one else should. Personally, I want to know that my doctor wants to relieve me of my suffering not relieve me of my life. Suffering is not a waste of human life - all suffering is redemptive. John Russell, Henlow

I believe that there will always be some conditions that cannot be sufficiently helped by medication, and family or carer support. The quality of a person's remaining life should be considered. As an absolute last resort there should be some rights for people to choose a pain-free and peaceful death. Emily Duell, Colchester

I believe that the Royal College of Physicians are motivated largely by potential legal and religious repercussions. The inability to recognise the needs of the patient is a serious omission. Good sense and sympathy should prevail to allow human beings the right to die as they have had the right to live. Name and address withheld

The question asked in a previous comment is "who has the right to play God". An active soul is one whereby the person knows his identity and picks up the responsibility for his actions before God. To murder will cost you your life, that is God's judgment as stated in the Old Testament To show compassion and understand can be argued before a loving God, that is a statement from the soul. Alan Grocock, Huntingdon

We religious countries seem to have a hang up on living into old age at all costs. Our God should teach us to live a good life whilst we are here, rather than just prolonging an agony for ourselves and our loved ones. Live a good life every moment,irrespective of years, and most important, help each other to move on, to make space for the next, better person. David Morris, Wirral

To those who say that euthanasia should be legalised, and that they themselves would choose to die on their own terms were it to be legalised, I say hire yourself a professional executioner. But don't enlist the medical profession. Michael Petek, Brighton

None of us have the right to prevent someone’s ability to choose. With most terminal conditions the sufferer has the physical ability and therefore the choice to take their own life, regardless of the law and regardless of other people’s opinions. However, with conditions that remove all physical movement the choice is lost. This Bill allows those patients, especially, to regain some power over their free will, as well as giving other terminal patients who would choose to die access to drugs to end their life in a better way than the options they currently have without a doctor's help. This Bill is not saying that at the first mention of wanting to die anyone will immediately be handed a potion to induce death, rather that with proper psychiatric help and an extended period before the act is carried out, we can make sure those requesting death have come to the right decision. Doctors say they take an oath to do no harm, well letting someone suffer unnecessarily and against their will is inflicting harm, whether that suffering is physical pain or mental. This Bill will not devalue the lives of the disabled, rather it will value the person they are as well as the opinions they have. Rebecca Collins, London

I imagine that in the 2025 NHS budgetary crisis, I'll get a A4 sheet of paper that says: "The NHS has determined that the medically appropriate treatment for your condition is euthanasia. If you would like to investigate other options, your GP can refer you to a private specialist." Greg Kochanski, Oxford

I believe no one has the right to play God. Without a doubt, some may argue that not everyone believes in God and therefore to deny them their choice of life or death based on Christian principles would be taking away their human right of choice. However, I feel legalising assisted suicide may encourage people to give up easily on life. At this point in time when medical advancement has made it possible to improve quality of life in palliative care and manage pain to a great extent, euthanasia almost makes a mockery of this. What will be the measure to define extreme suffering? Where is the line drawn between relieving someone's pain and giving someone an easy escape route? I feel that legalising euthanasia will be treading on a very thin line that will open even further and more complicated debates. Name withheld, London

We have no power to create life, so why should we have the power to take it away? David Wilcox, Ohrid, Macedonia

With virtually every professional body representing doctors and nurses firmly opposed to the Joffe Bill, one wonders who is going to provide the necessary barbiturates to assist patients who want to commit suicide and who is going to administer the necessary lethal injection when such self-administration fails, as it surely will in a number of cases. Perhaps those who cry that we treat sick dogs better than dying people should be campaigning for vets to do the assisting for humans as well, as they have much more experience of helping their patients to die than any UK doctor other than Harold Shipman. Failing that, perhaps the philosophers and lawyers so keen on legalising it should also be authorised to do it. Why does it need a doctor at all? Healers should not be those who assist their patients' self-destruction. Trevor Stammers, Epsom

There are a great many things to consider before any legal change is made in this field. I do think that a lot of people would be put out of their misery knowing that if things got to hard to bear, then they had an escape route. For the families of these people, it may be a relief to know that while their loved one is no longer around, they are not suffering as they did before. But, caution must be taken if the legalisation of euthanasia takes place. Who's to say that someone kills another and claims euthanasia? If the person wishes to be peacefully killed, I believe that their case should be reviewed by a board, who check that this is a genuine claim. Otherwise, all this new law would do is legalise murder. Anna Grant-Casey, Bicester

Euthanasia is the humane thing to do for the hopelessly sick, as long as there is no monetary gain for the relatives or doctors and confirmed by non-involved parties. I am speaking from the perspective of having a twin brother and a father die a slow death when there was no cure but pain and time. God bless them. Name and address withheld

Euthanasia is assisted suicide. If suicide is legal, then why not Euthanasia. As a safe-guard, people could declare in their Will the conditions under which they should be assisted. Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

I am in favour of legalised euthanasia. I looked after my father when he had motor neurone disease and I am quite clear in my mind that if if I endured a similar clinical condition to the one that he had, that I would like the choice and the assistance to be euthanised. I think the thing to remember is that people are different. Whilst my father wanted to live until his very last day, I do not share the same views as my father. I think that euthanasia is a good and compassionate thing when it is clearly indicated from the person, that this is indeed their wish. I feel sad when I think about the trauma involved in terminally ill patients making their way to Switzerland to have euthanasia when it would give them and their loved ones so much comfort to be able to do it here. Rose Wong, Liverpool

The right to die is implicit in the right to live. If a person's quality of life is such that they wish to terminate their life, then surely they should be allowed to do so with dignity. Maria Warden, London

I believe there is a strong case for allowing individuals with serious incurable illnesses to choose their time to die. The medical profession may claim that they can provide excellent palliative care and maintain a quality of life, but their idea of quality may be different to the patient's view. There just need to be safeguards that people are not pressurised into taking this route to avoid using potential inheritances on care costs. Richard DeHavillande, Aylesbury

While I understand that some doctors may feel that to help someone to die is against their moral ethics, I feel that if someone is suffering and there is no possibility of help or of them surviving their troubles with any quality of life, it should be possible for that person to end their life. At the moment, such a person may attempt this without medical help and, being untrained, can suffer even more because of the attempt. If the doctors who voted against euthanasia don't want to help, why not set up clinics where psychologists and pain control experts can make a medical assessment of the person and, if they feel that euthanasia is acceptable, assist in a dignified end to the life. There is also the legal aspect of 'suicide', which has not been discussed to date. Will the person be deemed to have committed suicide and so lose pension and insurance rights for the next of kin? Personally I feel that an individual who is deemed to be of sound mind should have the right to end their life. Marie Butler, Plymouth

Yes, I am in favour of legalising Euthanasia. I am only 33 years old, in good health and planning to live until I am 100. However, if could sign a legal document instructing both my family and doctors of my wish to die with dignity then I would do it today. This would absolve all medical staff of blame and family members from guilt. I want my family and friends to remember me for how I lived, not how I died. Also, I do not want the last experiences of my life being that of a decrepit old man withering away in some dark corner of an old peoples home. The choice you make about your passing should be as important as how you choose to live your life. Grahame Bishop, Leicestershire

Why should Doctors play God? I cannot help a friend take their life (should health dictate), nor can I ask a friend of mine to assist with the end of my life should my health become so beyond repair that I lose all sense of dignity. Yet the medical profession/Government can dictate who gets what medicine, care, operations, etc. Who decides that a person in one county has more of a right to live than someone in another county? Who has the right to play God? The problem we have is that if you challenge the medical profession/Government with this equation, you can be sure of one thing; you wont get an answer. Joanna Millward, London

Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. Please restrict your response to 250 words. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Please include your name, town/county/state of residence and e-mail.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.