Royal College of GPs will remain opposed to assisted suicide

The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) will continue to oppose a change in law on assisted suicide, following a consultation of its members.   

The RCGP’s consultation, conducted independently by Savanta ComRes, was sent to almost 50,000 members, who were asked whether RCGP should change its current position of opposing a change in the law on assisted dying.

Just under half (47%) of those surveyed said the College should not change its position, while 40% said it should support a law change providing there is a regulatory framework and appropriate safeguarding processes in place.

11% of respondents said the RCGPs should be neutral, while 2% abstained.

The RCGP Council agreed that the survey results did not support a change in the RCGP’s existing position on assisted suicide.

Professor Martin Marshall, Chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: “Assisted dying is a controversial topic and this was reflected in the responses to our consultation. However, the highest proportion of respondents said that the College should continue to oppose a change in the law on assisted dying…

“The role of the College now is to ensure that patients receive the best possible palliative and end of life care, and to this end we are working with Marie Curie and others to support this.”

In a victory for pro-life campaigners, the RGCP declared it will not review the College`s position on assisted suicide for at least five years unless there are significant developments on the issue.

The medical body last consulted members on the issue in 2013, when the majority said the college should remain opposed.

Currently, no professional medical body supports changing the law on assisted suicide, which is illegal in the UK.

However, activists have been attempting to introduce assisted suicide legislation to the UK through the courts, medical bodies and parliament.

The British Medical Association (BMA) is currently surveying its member’s views on assisted suicide.  The results of the BMA survey, which closes on 27 February, will be discussed at this year’s annual conference in June and could see the professional body changing its current policy on assisted suicide.

Currently, the BMA believes that “the ongoing improvement in palliative care allows patients to die with dignity … [and] insists that physician-assisted suicide … voluntary euthanasia … [and] non-voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK.” 

However, the BMA is now asking its 160,000 members:

“whether they believe the BMA should support, oppose, or take a neutral stance on a change in the law to permit doctors to prescribe drugs for eligible patients to end their own life … [and] about a stance to a change in the law to permit doctors to administer drugs with the intention of ending an eligible patient’s life.”

The doctors’ union has had a policy opposing assisted suicide since the 1950s, but very briefly became neutral on the issue in 2005.

Since then, the BMA has been opposed to all forms of assisted suicide – a position they reaffirmed in 2016 at the organisation’s annual representative meeting.

In a letter published in The Times, a large group of prominent palliative care doctors have called on the BMA to uphold their duty of care and remain opposed to assisted suicide.

The Royal College of Physicians dropped its long-standing opposition to assisted dying in favour of neutrality following a 2019 membership survey, despite continued opposition to assisted suicide being the most favoured position among those surveyed. The change in stance from the college is currently the subject of a legal challenge.

In November, the High Court rejected to hold a judicial review of the current law on assisted suicide, with judges stating the court was “not an appropriate forum for the discussion of the sanctity of life”. The Court of Appeal rejected an attempt to challenge this decision last month.

Similarly, in 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that Parliament was a “better forum” than the courts for determining the issue of legalising assisted suicide.

Parliament has consistently rejected attempts by the assisted suicide lobby to introduce assisted suicide, with 330 to 118 voting against introducing assisted suicide in 2015. 

Just last month, strong opposition from MPs resulted in the Government rejecting a call for review on assisted suicide, despite the best efforts from large pressure groups in favour of assisted suicide.

Additionally, the Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland QC has recently confirmed the Government has “no plans” to introduce assisted suicide legislation, saying: “Personally, I have grave doubts about the ability of legislation to be watertight when it comes to the potential for abuse.”

Assisted suicide pressure groups cite a poll that shows there is widespread support for legislation of assisted suicide, yet experts have heavily criticised the polling as deeply flawed. In fact, when asked questions that drill down into the merits of the debate, the percentage of those in support drops dramatically.

Large group of palliative care doctors call on BMA to remain opposed to assisted suicide

A large group of prominent palliative care doctors have called on the British Medical Association (BMA) to uphold their duty of care and remain opposed to assisted suicide.

The call comes as the BMA has launched a new survey of its members on the issue. The results of the BMA poll, which closes on 27 February, will be discussed at this year’s annual conference in June and could see the professional body changing its current policy on assisted suicide.

Currently, the BMA believes that “the ongoing improvement in palliative care allows patients to die with dignity … [and] insists that physician-assisted suicide … voluntary euthanasia … [and] non-voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK.” 

The doctors’ union has had a policy opposing assisted suicide since the 1950s, but very briefly became neutral on the issue in 2005.

Since then, the BMA has been opposed to all forms of assisted suicide – a position they reaffirmed in 2016 at the organisation’s annual representative meeting.

However, the BMA will now ask its 160,000 members:

“whether they believe the BMA should support, oppose, or take a neutral stance on a change in the law to permit doctors to prescribe drugs for eligible patients to end their own life … [and] about a stance to a change in the law to permit doctors to administer drugs with the intention of ending an eligible patient’s life.”

In a letter published in The Times, over 50 palliative care doctors and healthcare professionals said the existing law, which prohibits any form of assisted suicide or euthanasia, “ensures that doctors continue to uphold their duty of care, avoiding the inherent risks to sick and vulnerable patients that physician assisted suicide would bring”.

The doctors also used the letter to highlight how safeguards are ignored and eligibility criteria is soon expanded in countries that allow assisted suicide. Referencing Canada, the doctors say: 

“Canada’s Federal government has consulted on expanding assisted dying laws to the mentally ill, to ‘mature minors’ and individuals whose deaths are not imminent. Meanwhile Canadian hospices are facing pressure to provide assisted death or risk losing their funding.”

Activists have been attempting to introduce assisted suicide legislation to the UK through the courts, medical bodies and parliament.

The Royal College of Physicians dropped its long-standing opposition to assisted dying in favour of neutrality following a 2019 membership survey, despite continued opposition to assisted suicide being the most favoured position among those surveyed. The process used by the College is currently subject to a legal challenge.

Meanwhile, the results of a recent poll by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) are due to be released later this month.

In November, the High Court rejected to hold a judicial review of the current law on assisted suicide, with judges stating the court was “not an appropriate forum for the discussion of the sanctity of life”. The Court of Appeal rejected an attempt to challenge this decision last month.

Similarly, in 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that Parliament was a “better forum” than the courts for determining the issue of legalising assisted suicide.

Parliament has consistently rejected attempts by the assisted suicide lobby to introduce assisted suicide, with 330 to 118 voting against introducing assisted suicide in 2015. 

Just last month, strong opposition from MPs resulted in the Government rejecting a call for review on assisted suicide, despite the best efforts from large pressure groups in favour of assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide pressure groups cite a poll that shows there is widespread support for legislation of assisted suicide, yet experts have heavily criticised the polling as deeply flawed. In fact, when asked questions that drill down into the merits of the debate, the percentage of those in support drops dramatically.

The Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland said the government had no plans to launch an inquiry into current laws preventing euthanasia.

He added: “Personally, I have grave doubts about the ability of legislation to be watertight when it comes to the potential for abuse.”

Palliative care doctors letter in full:

Sir, Today the BMA launches a consultation surveying its members’ views on physician-assisted dying. Challenging individual cases have prompted calls to change the law. However, the existing law ensures that doctors continue to uphold their duty of care, avoiding the inherent risks to sick and vulnerable patients that physician-assisted suicide would bring. The NHS is already overloaded, struggling to serve an expanding ageing population without adequate funding for palliative care.

In other jurisdictions with legalised assisted dying, the picture is disturbing, and the World Medical Association recently reiterated its opposition to doctor-assisted dying. Canada’s federal government has consulted on expanding assisted dying laws to the mentally ill, “mature minors” and individuals whose deaths are not imminent. Meanwhile, Canadian hospices are facing pressure to provide assisted death or risk losing their funding. We understand that the medical profession cannot and should not dictate the law but are concerned that the public’s trust in doctors and medical institutions will lead our patients to equate assisted dying with good end-of-life care, as in Canada. We hope that the BMA will continue to oppose the involvement of doctors and that assisted dying will not become a medical intervention in the UK.

Prof Bill Noble, Consultant in Palliative Care; Dr Jim Gilbert, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Dr David Randall, Registrar in Renal Medicine; Dr Alexander Cary GP Trainee; Dr Dominic Whitehouse, Consultant Physician in Palliative and Respiratory Medicine; Prof Rob George, Medical Director and Consultant in Palliative Care; Dr Alison Brooks, GP; Dr Aiofe Gleeson, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Dr Robert Twycross, Emeritus Clinical Reader in Palliative Medicine; Prof David Oliver, Professor of Palliative Medicine; Prof Simon Noble, Professor of Palliative Medicine; Prof Irene Tuffrey-Wijne, Professor of Intellectual Disability and Palliative Care; Dr Amy Proffitt, Deputy Medical Director; Dr Mark Taubert, Consultant and Lead Clinician in Palliative Medicine; Dr Marina Malthouse, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Dr Craig Gannon, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Dr Rosemary Anthony-Pillai, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Dr Kevin O’Kane, Consultant in Acute Internal Medicine; Dr Melody Redman, Junior Doctor in Paediatrics; Dr Fiona McCormick, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Dr Simon Anderson, Consultant Gastroenterologist; Dr Angela Campbell, Consultant Geriatrician; Dr Luigi Camporata, Consultant in Intensive Care Medicine; Dr Peter Diem, Consultant Geriatrician; Dr Terrence Gibson, Consultant in Acute Internal Medicine; Dr Philip Howard, Consultant Gastroenterologist; Dr Mustafa Kadam, Registrar in Acute Internal and Stroke Medicine; Dr Iain Kennedy, GP; Dr Taryn Pile, Consultant Nephrologist; Dr Sanna Khawaja, Registrar in internal Medicine; Dr Ranjababu Kulasegaram, Consultant in HIV Medicine; Dr Roshan Navin, Consultant in Acute Internal Medicine; Dr Aysha Nazir, Registrar in Emergency Medicine; Dr Laura O’Sullivan, Registrar in Acute Internal and Intensive Care; Dr Farica Patel, Registrar in Acute Internal Medicine; Dr Richard Rawlins, Retired Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon; Dr Shabaz Roshan, Consultant Geriatrician; Dr Nadia Short, Consultant in Acute Internal Medicine; Dr Fiona Stephen, Trainee in Emergency Medicine; Dr Duncan Brown, Medical Director and Consultant in Palliative Care; Dr Ollie Minton, Clinical Lead in Palliative Medicine; Dr Claud Regnard, Honorary Consultant in Palliative Care Medicine; Dr Chris Farnham, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Baroness Sheila Hollins, Retired Consultant Psychiatrist; Dr Ellie Smith, Consultant in Palliative Medicine and Clinical Lead for Palliative Care; Dr Sarah Cox Consultant and Lead Clinician in Palliative Medicine; Dr Idris Baker, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Dr Seamus Coyle, Community Consultant in Palliative Care; Dr David Brooks, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Prof Scott Murray, Emeritus Professor of Primary Palliative Care; Dr Juliet Spiller, Consultant in Palliative Medicine; Prof Marie Fallon, Professor of Palliative Medicine

UK judge orders mother to have abortion against her will

A court has ordered that a mother with a learning disability who is 22 weeks pregnant must have an abortion. The woman is understood to be in her 20s and has been diagnosed with having a moderately severe learning disability.

The woman’s doctors claim that an abortion is in her best interests, despite the fact that the woman herself wants the child. Her social worker disagreed with the doctors and the woman’s legal team has said there was “no proper evidence” for their claim.

The pregnant woman’s own mother has offered to care for her grandchild when he/she is born and argued that her daughter’s doctors have “underestimated her ability and understanding…”

Mrs Justice Lieven, said that she believed it would be too difficult from the grandmother to look after both the daughter and the grandchild.

The Judge said it was an “enormous” decision and that she was “acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion”.

After making this concession, she proceded to order that this woman have an abortion against her will.

“I think [the woman] would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed [from her care],” Lieven said, because “it would at that stage be a real baby.”

Lieven clarified that the pregnancy “although real to [the woman], doesn’t have a baby outside her body she can touch.”

Lieven’s claim that her decision is in the best interest of the woman and “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination,” is extremely disingenuous.

In 2011, the judge represented the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Britain’s largest abortion provider, and in 2016 she argued in court that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were a violation of the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act. In 2017, she said that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were akin to torture and were discriminatory.

Right To Life UK have launched a petition to the Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, urging him to intervene in the case.

UK mother told to have abortion 10 times after baby found to have disability

A woman from Liverpool, Natalie Halson, was offered an abortion 10 times when she was pregnant with her daughter, Mirabelle, who was diagnosed in the as having spina bifida.

At every appointment, right up until the birth of her daughter, Natalie was repeatedly asked if she would like to abort her baby. Not knowing why the doctors kept doing so, Natalie eventually found out about her daughter’s medical condition which meant that part of her spine and spinal cord had not developed properly. This can cause paralysis of the legs, bowel or urinary incontinence, and even brain damage.

“I found out as much as I could and realised that there were options, I refused to give up on my baby but the medics just wouldn’t take no for an answer.

“It was so insistent even after I’d repeatedly said no but it was getting offered a termination just weeks before she was born that really upset me.

The doctors implied “an abortion was [her] only option and explained that if [she] went ahead with the pregnancy [her] baby would be wheelchair bound and have no quality of life.”

It was only after Mirabelle’s mother was able to do the research that she discovered that life for her daughter was not over, admitting that “If I’d not had that time to do my research I might have even agreed to the termination.”

Mirabelle was eventually born via an emergency C-section at Liverpool Women’s Hospital at 38 weeks, but was immediately taken to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital for a spinal operation.

“They operated on Mirabelle’s spine the day after she was born, it was a horrible anxious wait as it lasted about 12 hours, but the doctors were really happy with her progress afterwards.

After a month of visiting the newborn in hospital, she was finally allowed to take Mirabelle home. It seems likely that her daughter will have a normal life

“I would recommend to any parents who are advised to abort that it isn’t the only option, no matter what the hospitals try and tell them.” Natalie said

Clare McCarthy from Right To Life UK said:

“This is a wonderful outcome to what could have been a very sad story. It is deeply disappointing that Natalie’s doctors’ first – and apparently only – ‘solution’ to a diagnosis of spina bifida was abortion.”

“The discrimination towards children with disabilities on display here is appalling. All children, disabled or not, deserve a chance at life and it is a gross failure of professional responsibility for the doctors in this case to push abortion in a situation where it is not required or desired.”

“The attitude of the doctors in this case is particularly inexcusable given the recent advances in medical technology. In May this year, for example, doctors performed corrective spinal surgery on a child who was still in the womb. Whilst this may not have been appropriate here, the very fact that Mirabelle is now healthy after her operation proves that there was life changing medical care available to her, rather than abortion.”