I have read Dr Gerada's article in which she recommends that decisions on end of life be made by Parliament and suggests that doctors ought not to have an input in such matters.1
However, within the article Lord Falconer's report is quoted as if it were a fair assessment of the ‘assisted dying’ debate, when the membership of his committee was composed almost completely of supporters of euthanasia. The fact that Lord Falconer intends to reintroduce a further debate in 2013 suggests that he represents a pressure group and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be assumed to be a neutral observer.
Also quoted with approval was the introduction of the ‘Abortion Act’ when Lord Steele fronted the campaign but innocently had not perceived the floodgate he was helping to open. As a consequence, despite the protestations at its introduction that a conscience clause would protect nurses and doctors who had moral objections to being involved, there now exists a speciality area of medicine from which individuals are being excluded.
Doctors have every right to be involved. They will be the ones who will be asked to supply the drugs or to insert the venflon or needle. When opposing euthanasia, we are asking not to be given an increased power to kill, but to be given protection from pressures from individuals, relatives, administrators, and the State, who may desire the ending of lives prematurely. Quoting bad cases as done in this article, is not conducive to producing good law.
Dr Gerada retires with well-earned credit from a time of challenge and difficult leadership. I deeply regret that she should as a final act, use her position to sway opinion in our College in a particular direction.
- © British Journal of General Practice 2013
REFERENCES
- 1.↵