Assisted dying – a summary of the BMA’s position July 2006 At the BMA’s annual conference in Belfast on 29 June 2006, doctors voted by an overwhelming majority against legalising physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. The current policy is therefore that the BMA: (i) believes that the ongoing improvement in palliative care allows patients to die with dignity; (ii) insists that physician-assisted suicide should not be made legal in the UK; (iii) insists that voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK; (iv) insists that non-voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK; and, (v) insists that if euthanasia were legalised, there should be a clear demarcation between those doctors who would be involved in it and those who would not.
A joint statement from the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the Royal College of Nursing Health professionals are aware that decisions about attempting cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) raise very sensitive and potentially distressing issues for patients and people emotionally close to them. Some health professionals do not find it easy to discuss CPR with their patients, but this must not prevent discussion, either to inform patients of a decision or involve patients in the decision-making process, where appropriate. These guidelines identify the key ethical and legal issues that should inform all CPR decisions. These basic principles are the same for all patients, in all settings, but differences in clinical and personal circumstances make it essential that all CPR decisions are made on an individual basis. The guidelines provide a framework to support decisions relating to CPR and communicating them effectively.
Comprehensive guidance for doctors on care at the end of life, including difficult decisions on when to provide, withhold, or withdraw life prolonging treatment, will go out for consultation from the UK’s General Medical Council in March. The draft guidance was approved by the council at its February meeting, subject to minor amendments. The consultation will be launched in the week beginning 23 March and will end in July. The new advice takes account of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; government strategies on end of life care in England and Scotland; GMC guidance in 2007 on consent; recent research; and a Court of Appeal judgment on a legal challenge to the GMC’s 2002 guidance Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatments (Burke).
A father is fighting a hospital's attempt to withdraw support keeping his baby son alive. The one-year-old, known as Baby RB for legal reasons, was born with a rare, genetic muscle condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. His parents are going to the High Court - the mother is reportedly supporting the hospital's bid. The father's lawyers argue that the boy's brain is unaffected, meaning he can see, hear, interact and play. Despite having to remain in hospital and being dependent on a ventilator to breathe, he enjoys having stories read to him and listening to music, they say. The lawyers are submitting video footage to the court, which they say shows him playing with his toys. But the hospital says that Baby RB's quality of life is so low that it would not be in his best interests to try to save him. Baby RB was born with congenital myasthenic syndrome and has been in hospital since birth.
A father whose son was born with a rare neuromuscular condition will go to the high court tomorrow in an attempt to stop a hospital withdrawing the support that keeps the child alive. Doctors treating the one-year-old say the boy's quality of life is so poor that it would not be in his best interests to save him. They are reportedly being supported in their action by the baby's mother, who is separated from his father. The child, known for legal reasons as Baby RB, was born with congenital myasthenic syndrome (CMS), a muscle condition that severely limits movement and the ability to breathe independently. He has been in hospital since birth. If the hospital succeeds in its application, it will be the first time a British court has gone against the wishes of a parent and ruled that life support can be discontinued or withdrawn from a child who does not have brain damage.
A one-year-old boy at the centre of a "right-to-life" legal dispute would not benefit from an operation to help him breathe, the High Court has been told. The child, known as Baby RB, has a rare, genetic condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. But a leading paediatrician, known as Dr F, said he was "not a candidate" for surgery to try to open up his airway. Baby RB's father is fighting a hospital's attempt - backed by the mother - to withdraw his life support.
A doctor has agreed a baby in a "right-to-life" legal row may be able to interact - but any mental development would only make his fate more tragic. The paediatric neurologist told the High Court the severely disabled child, Baby RB, would remain in a "no chance" situation even if he developed further. He questioned the life the boy would lead if he was capable of cognitive function but physically so disabled.
A doctor has said that a baby in a "right-to-life" legal row has the potential to communicate and even operate a wheelchair in years to come. The paediatric neurologist, Professor Fenella Kirkham, told the High Court that Baby RB had the normal intelligence of a one-year-old. She said he was likely to develop language recognition skills and he may be better off at home. The boy's father is fighting an attempt by the hospital to end life support.
A father who had been fighting to stop a hospital withdrawing life support from his seriously ill son has dropped his objections. The one-year-old, known as Baby RB for legal reasons, was born with a rare, genetic muscle condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. The hospital was backed by the baby's mother. But the move had been strongly opposed by the child's father at a High Court hearing. However, the father changed his mind after hearing medical evidence which suggested it would be in the best interests of the child if medical support was withdrawn. Lawyers for the health authority caring for the baby in intensive care told Mr Justice McFarlane: "All of the parties in court now agree that it would be in RB's best interests for the course suggested by the doctors to be followed."
A father who went to the High Court to try to stop a hospital turning off his seriously ill baby son's life support machine has dropped his objections to the move. The outcome has prompted a mixture of sadness and relief. For six days they had sat in the bland surroundings of Court 50 at London's High Court listening to others talking about their baby son's quality of life. A host of paediatricians, nurses, and experts went into the witness box. Many of them urged a judge to decide that this profoundly disabled 13-month-old boy should be allowed to die. It was, they said, no longer in his best interests to keep him alive.
Amongst the latest, and ever-changing, pathways of death and dying, “suicide tourism” presents distinctive ethical, legal and practical challenges. The international media report that citizens from across the world are travelling or seeking to travel to Switzerland, where they hope to be helped to die. In this paper I aim to explore three issues associated with this phenomenon: how to define “suicide tourism” and “assisted suicide tourism”, in which the suicidal individual is helped to travel to take up the option of assisted dying; the (il)legality of assisted suicide tourism, particularly in the English legal system where there has been considerable recent activity; and the ethical dimensions of the practice. I will suggest that the suicide tourist—and specifically any accomplice thereof—risks springing a legal trap, but that there is good reason to prefer a more tolerant policy, premised on compromise and ethical pluralism.
Should those with incurable illnesses be allowed to choose how and when they die? In his Richard Dimbleby lecture, author Terry Pratchett, who has Alzheimer's disease, makes a plea for a common-sense solution. This is an edited extract of Terry Pratchett's Richard Dimbleby lecture, Shaking Hands With Death, which was broadcast on BBC1 on 1 February
TV presenter Ray Gosling has been arrested on suspicion of murder by Nottinghamshire Police after he admitted killing his lover. The 70-year-old's confession that he had smothered the unnamed man who was dying of Aids was broadcast on the BBC's Inside Out programme on Monday. The Nottingham filmmaker said he had made a pact with his lover to act if his suffering increased. Police are questioning the presenter over his claims.
Doctors are being urged to discuss end-of-life care with the terminally ill well in advance of their final days. The General Medical Council, the profession's regulator, says early discussions can help avoid misunderstandings and conflict. In new guidelines, the GMC says doctors should start from the assumption that life should be prolonged, although not at any cost. Opportunities should also be sought to discuss organ donation.
A new campaign by disability rights activists to limit the right to die launches at Westminster on Thursday. The campaign - called Not Dead Yet UK Resistance - will be asking MPs to sign a charter in support of its aims. It says that disabled and terminally ill people should enjoy the same legal protection as everyone else. Those in favour of assisted suicide argue that opposing assisted suicide will condemn terminally-ill people to suffer needlessly. The Not Dead Yet UK's charter includes a commitment to oppose any changes to existing laws which state that assisting a patient to commit suicide is illegal.