I was rather taken aback to be asked why the RCGP had dropped its opposition to the Assisted Dying Bill, and had to admit that I didn't even realise this decision had been taken, let alone why. Were members consulted? I certainly wasn't, and don't recall any discussion of the issue in the BJGP.
Scanning the internet revealed much interesting correspondence, including an excellent submission by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services,1 which I would recommend to anyone with an interest in the debate.
The RCGP's press release2 — intended to ‘clarify the RCGP's position’ explains that a neutral position should not be interpreted as support for the Bill. I would argue that if you are not against it, you therefore must be for it. What if the College suddenly decided to take a neutral stance on smoking in public places? No longer being against it, you would by default now be for it.
The press release also suggests that it is not the College's role to ‘support or oppose’ the Bill: ‘This decision is a matter for society as a whole and its law makers.’ If that is the view of the College on a very serious ethical (not to mention practical) dilemma for its members, it certainly has no business getting involved in a public health issue, such as smoking in public, which has no direct bearing on its members' working lives.
I believe it is precisely the role of the College to take up a strong position on this matter and advise the government accordingly. Failure to do so is a shocking act of moral cowardice and an abject betrayal of its members.
Editor's note
Following discussion at the meeting of UK Council on 13 November, it's clear that this is a matter of individual conscience, however, after thorough audit of the draft Bill the RCGP confirmed that it has NOT changed it's position of of deliberate neutrality. This matter will be further debated at the February Council Meeting.
- © British Journal of General Practice, 2004.
