Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Out of Hours

No decision about me without me

Ilora Finlay
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (614): 480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X671650
Ilora Finlay
Professor of Palliative Medicine and Crossbench Peer, London.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Yet again there is an ‘assisted dying’ bill before the House of Lords. ‘Assisted dying’ is a euphemism for assisted suicide. But what is being proposed isn’t just assisted suicide, it is physician-assisted suicide. What Lord Falconer’s Private Member’s bill is proposing is to license doctors to supply lethal drugs to patients whom they believe to be terminally ill and mentally capable so that those drugs can be used by the patient to commit suicide.

Those who want to see the law changed suggest that doctors should stand aside from this issue because it is ‘a matter for society as a whole’. Yes, it is; but it is not society as a whole that is being asked to carry it out. The people who would be in the frontline of any such law and who would be accountable for deciding whether a request for assisted suicide should be granted and for supplying the lethal drugs to carry it out, would be doctors and especially GPs: their leading role is made clear by Lord Falconer in the explanatory notes to his bill. Moreover, the bill indicates that they could find themselves doing rather more than just supplying the drugs.

It is also suggested by some advocates of ‘assisted dying’ that the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) should stand back and not express a view on whether the law should be changed. They believe that the College’s view in this matter should carry no more weight than the view of the man in the street. I am sorry, but this is nonsense. As long as we are talking about physician-assisted suicide, the views of the medical profession, and especially of those within it who are likely to find themselves in the firing line, are of particular importance. It is a case of ‘no decision about me without me’.

We are, moreover, dealing with an issue here which goes to the heart of medicine, namely, whether doctors should be licensed by law to involve themselves in aiding and abetting the suicides of patients. A law like this would represent a major change both to the criminal law and to the principles underpinning clinical practice. To suggest that the RCGP should stand back from such a fundamental issue of policy and confine itself to advising on detailed codes of practice is hard to credit.

For the College to express a view is not to impose a view on parliament or the public. Parliament is at liberty to disregard the views of the Colleges of Physicians, Surgeons, and GPs that the law should not be changed to license physician-assisted suicide. It does, however, deserve to hear what those views are.

Which brings us to the question: what should the RCGP’s view be? It is, presumably, to answer this question that the current consultation with members has been launched. Whatever the outcome of this process, it is important that it should command respect and be beyond challenge. For that to happen, the consultation needs to be, and be seen to be, balanced and substantial.

It is difficult therefore to see why a ballot of the membership has been ruled out. The reason given — that the complexity of the issue does not lend itself to simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers — makes little sense. Of course the issue is complex, but it is hardly beyond the comprehension of GPs. And at the end of the day the College needs to know, and to know directly from GPs themselves, what they think about whether the College should have a position in the matter and, if so, what that position should be. What better way to ascertain the answer to those questions than through a properly conducted ballot of the membership?

Nor can the mere existence of divergent views be taken as justifying a stance of neutrality. Divergence of opinion is inevitable on a whole range of issues. A switch to neutrality, which risks being misinterpreted by parliament and the public as support for legalisation, requires clear evidence that there is a significant degree of support for such a course among a substantial proportion of the membership.

I would therefore urge all GPs, whatever their view of this controversial issue, to make their views known to the College. The RCGP has a high reputation in the land and it would be unfortunate if this were to be damaged by controversy over its handling of a crucial area of clinical practice.

Notes

Competing interests

The author is co-Chair of the research organisation Living and Dying Well. She is also co-Chair of the APPG on Carbon Monoxide, Vice-Chair of the APPG on Hospice and Palliative Care, Vice-Chair of the APPG on Suicide and Self harm, and co-Chair of The APPG Dying Well.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (614)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 614
September 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
No decision about me without me
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
No decision about me without me
Ilora Finlay
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (614): 480. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X671650

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
No decision about me without me
Ilora Finlay
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (614): 480. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X671650
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Notes
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

Out of Hours

  • Yonder: Physician assistants, timewasting, nursing homes, and social media
  • The chronotherapy of hypertension: or the benefit of taking blood pressure tablets at bedtime
  • Every home should have one: the critical role of the research librarian
Show more Out of Hours

Viewpoint

  • The NHS: have the rivets popped?
  • Bring Hippocrates to the people and save the NHS
  • Getting the swagger back into general practice
Show more Viewpoint

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242