The case for neutrality on assisted dying — a personal view

Christopher Wayte

doi:10.3399/bjgp13X662902

Clare Gerada has done a lot of good things since becoming Chair of Council at the RCGP: her regular e-mail updates are very good. Unfortunately her ill-judged article on assisted dying and changing the College position on the issue is unhelpful and deeply flawed.1

She makes the common mistake of giving weight to the Falconer commission. It is well recognised that the Falconer commission was a propaganda vehicle for Dignity in Dying, the pro-euthansia pressure group. The commission was chaired by Lord Falconer, a member of Dignity in Dying and a prominent advocate of euthanasia and assisted suicide, the commission was by Dignity in Dying, it was funded by Terry Pratchett, a celebrity member of Dignity in Dying, and 12 out of 13 of the commission members were known supporters of assisted suicide and euthanasia. So the Falconer commission was in no way an unbiased and neutral observer on the issue, but a strongly pro-euthanasia and pro-assisted suicide report. Clare Gerada is either being naïve or economical with the truth if she believes that the Falconer commission provides an unbiased and fair opinion.

Although advocating neutrality on the issue sounds very reasonable, it does in fact shift the College position towards legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia, so it is not a ‘neutral’ position to advocate this change. Repeated polls have shown the majority of doctors to be opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia, and despite repeated efforts by the pro-euthanasia lobby at BMA conferences, the BMA retains its opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The answer to suffering in terminal illness situations is not to kill the sufferer, or to aid them in killing themselves, but is in practising good palliative care. We are very fortunate in the UK in having a very good palliative care system, and improving overall standards of palliative care is the right way forward. It is interesting that the Netherlands has historically had very poor palliative care service, and their answer to much terminal suffering has been to kill patients rather than provide palliative care.

Finally it is questionable whether Clare Gerada has the right to use a BJGP article to express her personal view. As a doctor she is not allowed to let her personal views affect how she looks after patients, and it is questionable whether she should be allowed to use her position of authority to publicly express a personal view. I also trust that, in the interests of fairness, that the BJGP will be publishing in due course a viewpoint from an opponent of legalising assisted suicide, in order to give a balanced view.