Doctors opt for neutral stance on assisted dying

BRITISH Medical Association (BMA) members have voted for the doctors’ union to adopt a neutral stance on assisted dying.

Some 49% of the BMA’s representative body yesterday voted in favour of a motion for it to move to a position of neutrality on assisted dying including physician assisted dying, with 48% against it and 3% abstaining. Previously, the BMA has been opposed to a change in the law on assisted dying.

The union said that while the decision means it will neither support nor oppose attempts to change the law, it will not be silent on the issue and has “a responsibility to represent its members’ interests and concerns in any future legislative proposals”.

The debate comes after a survey showed that 40% of members said the BMA should support attempts to change the law on prescribing drugs for eligible patients to self-administer to end their own life, with 33% favouring opposition and 21% saying the union should be neutral.

The survey also found that 50% personally believed that there should be a change in the law to permit doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs, with 39% opposed and 11% undecided.

But the survey of nearly 30,000 members found that 40% felt the BMA should oppose attempts to change the law to permit doctors to administer life-ending drugs, with 30% favouring support, and 23% feeling the BMA should adopt a neutral stance.

Proposing the motion at the BMA’s annual representative meeting, Dr Robin Arnold said moving to a neutral position will allow the BMA to represent all its members. He added: “You do not have to decide today whether you are in favour of physician-assisted dying or against it, you have to consider how best the wide range of views of our membership can be represented.”

However, some members warned that a neutral stance would be seen as “tacit” approval of euthanasia.

Dr Gillian Wright said: “This motion is actually about euthanasia, the BMA defines physician-assisted dying as assisted suicide and euthanasia. We know that neutrality means tacit approval and has enormous political significance.”

Dr John Chisholm, BMA medical ethics committee chair, said that he did not believe a neutral stance amounted to “tacit support” for assisted dying. He added: “There are clearly some doctors who feel that this is tantamount to tacit support, I do not believe that.

“I believe that neutrality, which is the BMA’s policy now, allows us to continue to represent our members’ concerns and views and interests strongly without actually taking a position for or against a proposal for a change in the law.”

The BMA’s representative body also passed another motion calling for “robust conscience rights” to be included in any future legislation on assisted dying in the UK, meaning that healthcare workers should be able to conscientiously object to participating in assisted dying.

The move to neutral on assisted dying was welcomed by some campaign groups, with Dignity in Dying chief executive Sarah Wootton calling it “a victory for common sense”. She said: “This is an historic decision and a victory for common-sense. It brings the BMA in line with a growing number of medical bodies in the UK and around the world that truly represent the range of views that healthcare professionals hold on assisted dying.”