Recommendations
269. We recommend that:
(a) an early opportunity should be taken for
our report to be debated by the House in the next session of Parliament
(Paragraph 235).
(b) in the event that another bill of this nature
should be introduced into Parliament, it should, following a formal
Second Reading, be sent to a Committee of the whole House for
examination (Paragraph 235).
(c) any such bill should take account of the
following considerations which have emerged in the course of our
inquiry:
(i) a clear distinction should be drawn in any
future bill between assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia
in order to provide the House with an opportunity to consider
carefully these two courses of action, and the different considerations
which apply to them, and to reach a view on whether, if such a
bill is to proceed, it should be limited to the one or the other
or both (Paragraphs 243-246);
(ii) any future bill should set out clearly the
actions which a doctor may and may not take either in providing
assistance with suicide or in administering voluntary euthanasia
(Paragraphs 247-248);
(iii) if a future bill should include terminal
illness as a qualifying condition, this should be defined in such
a way as to reflect the realities of clinical practice as regards
accurate prognosis (Paragraphs 250-251);
(iv) a definition of mental competence in any
future bill should take into account the need to identify applicants
suffering from psychological or psychiatric disorder as well as
a need for mental capacity (Paragraphs 252-254);
(v) consideration should be given in any future
bill to including "unrelievable" or "intractable"
suffering or distress rather than "unbearable" suffering
as a criterion (Paragraphs 255-256);
(vi) if a future bill is to claim with credibility
that it is offering assistance with suicide or voluntary euthanasia
as complementary rather than alternative to palliative care, it
should consider how patients seeking to end their lives might
experience such care before taking a final decision (Paragraphs
257-258);
(vii) in setting a waiting period between an
application for assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia and the
carrying out of such actions, any future bill should seek to balance
the need to avoid increased suffering for determined applicants
against the desirability of providing time for reflection for
the less resolute. Such a waiting period is of less importance
in the case of assisted suicide but needs to be considered carefully
in the case of voluntary euthanasia (Paragraphs 259-260);
(viii) any new bill should not place on a physician
with conscientious objection the duty to refer an applicant for
assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia to another physician
without such objection; it should provide adequate protection
for all health care professionals who may be involved in any way
in such an application; and it should ensure that the position
of persons working in multi-disciplinary teams is adequately protected
(Paragraphs 261-263);
(ix) any new bill should not include provisions
to govern the administration of pain relief by doctors (Paragraphs
264-266).
77