Since the British Parliament’s passing of the pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity Bill on 5th April in the House of the Lords, fear has been raised among pro-lifers that the legislation may fuel a decline in medical ethics in the UK which may spread to Europe.
The largest pro-life group in Europe - the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) - based in the UK, stated on a press release that the Mental Capacity Bill "heralds the end of the Hippocratic tradition of medical ethics in Britain".
Prior to the last reading of the bill by the House of the Lords, SPUC warned the British Parliament of the existing dangers, and they used the recent euthanasia controversy in Terri Schiavo’s case in the United States.
The Mental Capacity Bill will allow mentally incapacitated patients who are terminally ill or dying to appoint a relative or friend to make future decisions on their behalf and will allow people with no-one to act for them to leave instructions regarding their future treatment. The Bill was accused of "legalising euthanasia by neglect and assisted suicide for vulnerable adults". In critical circumstances, the Bill can lead to another Terri Schiavo’s tragedy.
Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, said, "We can expect more Schiavo-like killings when the Bill comes into force."
Ozimic said, "The passage of the Bill will have profound repercussions - it will mean that doctors will be forced to choose between killing some of their patients and leaving the profession. It will destroy what is left of medical ethics in this country."
"Doctors who refuse on clinical or other ethical grounds to implement an advance refusal of treatment face litigation and possibly criminal conviction. Even in situations where there is no obligation to provide therapeutic measures (for example, when they are ineffective) there remains a duty of care towards the patient. It would be unreasonable, and immoral, to force healthcare professionals to relinquish this responsibility because of their conscientious objection to implementing clinically inappropriate or unethical advance refusals."
