The Christian Medical Fellowship has welcomed the decision by the Royal College of General Practitioners to oppose euthanasia legislation and called on the BMA to review its position of ‘neutrality’ on the issue.
|TOP|
The CMF General Secretary Peter Saunders said in a CMF press release: “Most doctors have been clear throughout regarding their opposition to the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill and the RCGP, in contrast to the BMA, has now shown itself to be a legitimate representative body by aligning itself with the clear view of the majority of its members.”

The RCGP made the decision following a consultation with members on the need for a change in the law in which 300 faculty members and medical practitioners were against, 70 for and 10 unclear.

The meeting concluded: “The RCGP believes that with current improvements in palliative care, good clinical care can be provided within the existing guidelines and that patients can die with dignity. A change in legislation is not needed.”

The RCGP had originally adopted a neutral position on euthanasia last autumn when it presented evidence to the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. The RCGP changed its position, however, following a host of complaints from GPs.

The BMA voted in favour of adopting a neutral position at its annual representative meeting in June by a 93 to 82 vote although the outcome was criticised by the CMF as less than half of delegates were present to vote.

According to Mr Saunders, a recent poll by doctors.net, a cybercommunity of over 113,000 UK doctors, 75 per cent of those surveyed agreed that they would not participate in euthanasia even if the law was changed.

|QUOTE|Mr Saunders accused a ‘vocal minority’ within the BMA of engineering the 134,000-strong BMA’s neutral position. He said: “It is clear that when frontline doctors have a chance to speak, they do so overwhelmingly in opposition to euthanasia. This is a strong signal to decision-makers to consult more widely and act more democratically when framing official policy.”

Mr Saunders claimed that some people supported euthanasia as a result of being fed a “diet of misinformation and fear” by right-to-die advocates “when what they really need is to be properly informed and given hope”.

He said: “The vast majority of calls for euthanasia are really calls for good medical care and symptom relief. Requests for euthanasia and assisted suicide are extremely rare when a patient’s physical, social, emotional and spiritual needs are properly met. Our priority must therefore be to make the best possible whole person care more widely available.”

Mr Saunders urged the BMA to follow the RCGP in listening to the concerns of its members and review its position on euthanasia. He warned: “Parliament and the public should not be misled by the BMA’s current neutral position.”