Euthanasia Fear Spreads as UK Government Passes Mental Capacity Bill

Despite cross-party fears that euthanasia may be "introduced by the back door," the Government’s "Living Wills" legislation was set to become law last night. The Mental Capacity Bill will allow people to make a living will which would specify what medical treatment they would be willing to undergo if they became incapacitated in the future.

The Mental Capacity Bill allows an individual to be nominated to make decisions on behalf of an incapacitated patient. Since the bill was first incepted, it has met cross-party opposition. It has drawn strong criticism, although it has been backed by lobby groups for Alzheimer’s Society, Mencap and Age Concern.

The new bill which brings fears that it would effectively introduce euthanasia sparked a Commons rebellion by 34 Labour MPs in December last year. A government amendment was made in January in response to the criticisms. Finally the bill cleared the House of Lords after the legislation was changed so that it would disallow "any decision made with a purpose of bringing about the death of a person."

According to the Guardian newspaper, former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) tabled 66 amendments to the Bill last night which he said "was still not strong enough to exclude the possibility of euthanasia by the omission of treatment."

MPs accepted the Lords amendments and rejected Mr Duncan Smith’s changes after Constitution Affairs Minister David Lammy insisted that "the government stands firm on suicide and has continually made that clear."

He warned MPs that if the Lord’s amendments are overturned, they would also be rejecting new safeguards, including giving a doctor the right to decide not to accept an advance decision if he was not satisfied.

The passing of the "Living Wills" legislation and also a parliamentary committee’s support for another bill that advocates assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia have been a blow to pro-lifers in Britain.

A group of Catholic medical and legal experts previously wrote that the legislation "compromises the principle that all people have an intrinsic dignity irrespective of their mental impairment or physical condition, one of the cornerstones of Christian civilization."

For the past year, a House of Lords’ committee has examined the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, which advocates assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia for mentally competent but terminally ill patients who are "suffering unbearably."

Anti-euthanasia campaigners are concerned about a report published on Monday by the committee on another bill which will further strengthen the cause of "right-to-die" activists if successful when considered by future Parliament. In the report, the committee recommends that the bill be debated by lawmakers in both Houses soon after parliament is reconvened following the general election on 5th May.

"Key issues" which will need to be addressed in any future legislation were identified in the report, including whether either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, or both, should be allowed. (Voluntary Euthanasia means ending a person’s life at his/her request, whereas an assisted suicide is where an individual receives the means needed to end their own life.)

The report was gladly welcomed by Britain’s Voluntary Euthanasia Society and called it, "A momentous day for terminally-ill patients who want greater choice at the end of their lives."

The Christian Medical Fellowship and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship expressed regret that the committee "did not have the wisdom and courage unequivocally to reject euthanasia."

CMF spokesman Peter Saunders said euthanasia was "contrary to all historical codes of medical ethics and the Judeo-Christian ethic." Not only is it morally wrong, but also dangerous because it undermined autonomy and "unnecessary because alternative treatments were available."

The committee acknowledged that "the demand for assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia is particularly strong among the determined individuals whose suffering derives more from the fact of their terminal illness than from its symptoms and who are unlikely to be deflected from their wish to end their lives by more or better palliative care."