Memorandum by "Right to Life"
"RIGHT TO
LIFE" IS
OPPOSED TO
THE ASSISTED
DYING FOR
THE TERMINALLY
ILL BILL
1. "Right to Life" is not a religious
group and has supporters from many different denominations and
of no faith. Nonetheless, we agree with the Joint Statement of
the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches that was submitted to
the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics (1995) in
which they stressed that:
(a) while both churches oppose euthanasia,
they do not support excessive action in maintaining life "by
all possible means and for as long as possible";
(b) they do not believe that "the right
to autonomy is absolute. It is valid only when it recognises other
moral values, especially with respect to human life . . . whether
someone else's or not".
The same view on autonomy was expressed by the
House of Lords in their judgement on the Dianne Pretty case. This
was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights when Mrs Pretty
appealed. Both the Lords and the European Court asserted that
there is no "right to die". The European Court—
in particular—considered that to grant such a "right"
would undermine the rights of the disabled and other vulnerable
groups.
2. The current campaigns promoting the legalisation
of euthanasia have had some extremely adverse repercussions. The
Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) have widely publicised claims
implying that doctors are practising clandestine euthanasia on
a wide scale. However, available evidence clearly shows that most
doctors are opposed to euthanasia and to assisted suicide.
The most recent large survey[1]
was conducted by ORB (The Opinion Research Business) through Doctors.net,
which is regarded as the foremost medical Internet company in
the UK. A total of 9,000 doctors, selected at random, were approached
and 986 medical practitioners completed the survey over a two-week
period from 26 March to 9 April 2003. The 11 per cent response
rate was typical of this type of Internet study. It revealed that
a majority of doctors are opposed to both euthanasia (61 per cent)
or assisted suicide (60 per cent). Only 22 per cent of doctors
were in favour of euthanasia and only 25 per cent were in favour
of assisted suicide. A significant number (13 per cent) were undecided,
mainly because they were not directly involved in the decision-making
process. Most doctors would refuse to perform either euthanasia
(76 per cent) or assisted suicide (74 per cent) if it were legalised.
On a number of occasions the VES has asserted
that euthanasia is practised widely in the hospice movement—although
the above survey showed that not one palliative care doctor who
responded was prepared to perform euthanasia or assisted suicide.
However, the VES seems to equate euthanasia with the "double
effect principle" in which drugs given to relieve pain and
symptoms may sometimes shorten life. They ignore the fact that
the intention or purpose of administering drugs in these circumstances
is not to kill the patients but to make them comfortable.
3. Nonetheless, the VES campaign has resulted
in the elderly and the disabled becoming increasingly frightened
of admission to hospital. This has been referred to in statements
from Dr Jane Campbell, a Commissioner on the Disability Rights
Commission, and in statements from disability rights groups, such
as Disability Awareness in Action and People First. They insist
that rather than "assisted dying legislation" this country
needs "assisted living legislation".
4. In recent experiences of the signatory
of this submission, it has also had the result of causing unnecessary
grief and concern to relatives of the dying.
A niece of the signatory of this document died
in a West London hospice on Sunday, 22 August 2004. She had a
primary cancer in one lung, with secondary tumours in the brain,
the liver and elsewhere. On the day of her death the hospice medical
and nursing teams concentrated on making her comfortable and easing
her breathing. However, her daughter (aged 25) became extremely
distressed because she thought that they might be shortening her
life. Fortunately, by that time the hospice staff had established
a strong relationship with the family and were able to console
the girl and explain the situation. Nonetheless, it is highly
unlikely that the daughter's concern and suffering would have
developed had it not been for the claims she had read from the
pro-euthanasia lobby. There must be many similar situations. As
it was the patient's death was very peaceful and painless as is
so in all the cases of hospice care of which we have heard.
5. It is unfortunate that the Assisted Dying
for the Terminally Ill Bill lends itself to the pro-euthanasia
propaganda which implies that terminally ill patients are not
entitled to complete pain relief. In the opening paragraph of
the Bill it states that it is ". . . to make provision for
a person suffering from a terminal illness to receive pain relief
medication". No such change in law is required. It is completely
irrelevant. In 1997 the case of Annie Lindsell who had Motor Neurone
Disease was heard in the High Court of Justice Family Division
when she applied for her doctor to be allowed to give her full
palliative care to relieve her symptoms as far as possible. In
his judgment, Justice Sir Stephen Brown, stressed that this was
lawful and always had been. He made it clear that it had been
totally unnecessary for her to bring such a case.
6. However, the euthanasia lobby continues
to make highly questionable claims regarding patients with Motor
Neurone Disease (MND). The VES constantly runs press campaigns
in which they give the impression that a very high proportion
of MND patients either suffocate or choke to death. In relation
to such claims, Dr Nigel Sykes—Medical Director of St Christopher's
Hospice—told a meeting in the Houses of Parliament that
not one of the 300 or so MND patients who had been treated by
him had ever choked to death or suffocated. At a meeting of the
All-Party Parliamentary Group on Motor Neurone Disease, Dr David
Oliver, a Consultant in Palliative Medicine from Wisdom Hospice
in Rochester, Kent, informed the meeting that in a survey conducted
on 171 deaths from MND in the UK and Germany, none choked. At
a further parliamentary meeting—attended by Dr Brian Iddon
MP—the audience was told by a hospice consultant that the
chances of MND patients dying from choking is about the same as
the chances of an ordinary person choking to death on a fishbone.
Nonetheless—as hospice doctors can confirm—MND patients
are constantly being frightened by the VES propaganda.
There have also been persistent claims that
Mrs Dianne Pretty—an MND patient—died in pain, whereas
the hospice in which she died have stated repeatedly that her
death "was peaceful and painless". This has been repeated
in statements from the Motor Neurone Disease Association which
has also asserted that the majority of patients with MND die peacefully
in their sleep.
7. We consider that there is a grave danger
that the legalisation of euthanasia could cause major changes
in society's attitude to the disabled and terminally ill. The
effect of legalised euthanasia has had an adverse effect on the
development of Hospice Care as can be seen from studying countries
and regions where euthanasia has been legalised. In Holland, for
example, the hospice movement is negligible. In Oregon palliative
care certainly does not compare with that in this country; one
quarter of patients who have assisted suicide suffer uncontrolled
pain and half have had no specialist psychological support. This
is appalling when one considers the quality of palliative care
in the United Kingdom.
8. Through recent experiences in hospices
and hospitals (see the above case—point 4) we witnessed
cases of depression in patients who had few visitors. But all
were offered and helped by counselling and psychological support.
This was also offered to families to help them through the trauma
of supporting a terminally ill relative. We need to make society
more aware of the need for showing personal care to the sick and
disabled and their families. In Oregon the effect of legalised
euthanasia has been an increase among those opting for euthanasia
because they "feel a burden on their families"; the
most recent figures show that over a third of euthanasia patients
in Oregon opted to have their lives ended on these grounds.
9. In the ORB survey referred to above (point
2) two in three doctors (66 per cent) felt that the pressure for
euthanasia would be lessened if there were more resources for
the hospice movement. Over 50 per cent (52 per cent) also considered
that the pressure for euthanasia would be lessened if there were
more resources for geriatric care. There is lamentable ignorance
shown by the VES and passed on to the media about the success
of modern palliative and geriatric care. (This is regrettable
but we feel it is quite deliberate.) We consider that it is also
significant that doctors who supported euthanasia in the ORB survey
were far less interested in the development of hospice care. Only
about half of them thought it would ease the pressure for euthanasia.
10. We find it remarkable that the euthanasia
lobby constantly cite Holland as the example this country should
follow. Overwhelming evidence shows that in the Netherlands patients
are killed without or against their wishes—indicating that
where euthanasia is claimed to be a right it endangers the lives
of others. This is precisely what the Disability Rights Groups
maintain. It was also the considered view of the European Court
of Human Rights as expressed in the Dianne Pretty Judgment.
11. We consider it imperative to comment
on the High Court Judgment on the Case of Mr Leslie Burke by Mr
Justice Munby. In it he maintains that personal autonomy overrides
all other rights—including the right to life. It is important
to note that before being appointed a Judge, Mr Justice Munby
was active in the euthanasia lobby and spoke for them in debates.
It is evident that the Judgment reflects more his personal views
than it reflects English Law and he certainly contradicts the
House of Lords ruling on the Dianne Pretty Case. His judgment
also contradicts that of the European Court of Human Rights in
the Dianne Pretty case when it ruled that there was no "right
to die". This is extraordinary in view of the fact that Mr
Justice Munby claimed to base his ruling on the European Convention
of Human Rights as scheduled in the Human Rights Act (1980).
12. We recommend that the Select Committee
should reject the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill.
We urge that the main recommendation of the Committee should be
a call for greater resources for the Hospice movement with further
development of hospice care in patients' homes. Substantially
greater resources should also be granted to develop more geriatric
care, particularly in view of the increase in the aging population.
September 2004
1 The ORB survey was financed by "Right to Life".
ORB had the final decision on all questions and Doctors.net was
responsible for the random selection of respondents. Back
| 
