Euthanasia, the Law and Doctors?

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is one of the most complex, sensitive and morally fraught issues facing society today. The issue has once again returned to the fore with doctors voting against legalising “mercy killings” for the first time this year before the Assisted Dying For the Terminally Ill Bill was debated and defeated in the Lords in May of this year.
Both the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and the Royal College of General Practitioners withdrew their neutral stance on euthanasia after an RCP vote showed that three quarters of the profession opposed a change in the law.
Campaigners for the Bill believe that the public backed the Bill, with sympathy for high-profile cases such as Diane Pretty’s attempt to win legal backing to end her life. As a result of the high media attention and sympathy given to people demanding the right to die, figures published by Dignity in Dying suggest 76% of the public are in favour of legislation to permit euthanasia and assisted suicide. This figure is disputed as misleading by Care not Killing due to the majority of people not being aware of palliative care and the viable option it provides.
The Bill, proposed by Lord Joffe a human rights lawyer, stated adults who are suffering “unbearably” as a result of a terminal illness and are of “sound mind” should be allowed to die at their own request.
The reason doctors oppose euthanasia can be attributed to many factors, the most significant of which is the pressure of making a decision based upon two unquantifiable elements, namely “unbearable suffering” and “sound mind”.
The mismatch of opinion between the public and the profession is undoubtedly in some part due to the fact it would be the doctors and not the public making the decision and living with the consequences.
Currently in the UK euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide, whereby the patient is given the means to kill themselves, are both illegal as a crime of murder and under the Suicide Act.
The law as it stands is maybe causing more problems than just the threat of prosecution for an act that may have been a measure of compassion. It has been suggested that as the law stands it is encouraging those doctors who believe in the right to choose to die to act in secret. In a poll carried out by the Annual Conference of Neuroscientists approximately 80% of people surveyed believed a colleague had assisted a patient to die.

As well as the threat of unreported and unregulated assisted suicide and euthanasia, pro choice doctors such as the now struck off Dr Michael Irwin, avoid UK law by advising patients to travel abroad to clinics such as Dignitas in Zurich. The risk of prosecution for giving such advice is slim, especially as it could be impossible to prove but such advice if caught could be classed as aiding and abetting suicide. The fact that patients can freely travel around European countries thus avoiding the law in their native country that prohibits euthanasia (a trend known as “death tourism”) is a concern for pro life groups. This problem is addressed in Oregon, where the patient must be a resident of the State, but with the freedom of movement around Europe an equivalent law would be hard to imagine and police.
As well as the State of Oregon, Holland, Belgium and Switzerland have laws that permit termination of life.
The Dutch passed the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Dying Act in 2002. This Act permits voluntary euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide providing the patient has lasting and intolerable suffering without any reasonable solution. Although this test seems high enough to only include terminally ill patients around 5% people who have died have not been terminally ill. The Pro Life Alliance (PLA) points to the Dutch example as why euthanasia or assisted suicide should not be legalised in any fashion.
The PLA believe that it is impossible to prevent the boundaries being expanded and claim in Holland “Initially euthanasia was available for those with terminal illness, then for those with chronic illness, and most recently Groningen University Hospital extended provision to children under 12”. This is a key area of concern for pro life campaigners worried that once any type of assisted suicide is permitted it is inevitable that the boundaries will continue to stretch and the law will become impossible to police.
Belgium followed Holland in 2002 passing the Belgian Act on Euthanasia while in Switzerland there is no Euthanasia bill but the Penal Code exempts any prosecution for taking part in a suicide if the intentions are completely honourable. Honourable intention would be difficult to judge if a similar standard was adopted in this country.
So where now for the UK Law on this issue? The Joffe Bill may return with amendments for debate again but as we speak there is no bill pending. However you can be sure that this complex debate will roll on.