Protection of Conscience Project News
Service, not Servitude
In response to a question about the recommendation of a private commission chaired by Lord Falconer, the British Secretary of State for Justice has stated that assisted suicide should not be legalized by policy, but by a decision of Parliament enacted in legislation. [Hansard]
The Commons Backbench Business Committee has decided that the House of Commons in the United Kingdom will debate the assisted suicide guidelines published by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2010. The guidelines had the effect of leaving the regulation of assisted suicide in the hands of police and Crown Counsel, though the practice remained a criminal offence. Conservative MP Richard Ottawa will ask the Commons to approve or reject the guidelines, and there is a chance that the debate could lead to legalization of the procedure in those cases excluded from prosecution by the guidelines. [BBC]
Member of the European Parliament Roger Helmer has written in favour of assisted suicide on grounds beyond those recommended by a recent report by a private commission, advocating the availability of the procedure for those not terminally ill. He explicitly argues that the cost of supporting people with advanced dementia is one reason to accept the practice. [TFA]
A report produced by a privately established and funded Commission on Assisted Dying has recommended that assisted suicide be legalized in the United Kingdom for any competent person over 18 years old who is terminally ill and expected to live less than 12 months. It also recommends that physicians who refuse to assist with suicide for reasons of conscience be compelled to refer patients to colleagues who will do so [P. 311, Report]. The eleven members of the Commission included Lord Falconer, a lawyer and former solicitor general, who acted as Chair. The validity of the Commission has been challenged from the outset, and a number of groups, including the British Medical Association, refused to take part, though about 1,300 sources gave evidence. [BBC]
Readers might be confused by Susan Martinuk’s quote from the College of Pharmacists about what the future may hold for the profession: “preparation of drugs to assist voluntary or involuntary suicide, cloning, genetic manipulation or even suicide.” (Customer isn’t always right on issues of conscience, The Province, 13 June, 2001).
The College Registrar has explained that “involuntary suicide” should have read “involuntary euthanasia“, a clarification that hardly diminishes the moral issues that arise when people are killed without their consent. The second reference to suicide in the same quote is an error in Ms. Martinuk’s article. The sentence in the College statement ended, “…or even execution“. The reference is to the participation of pharmacists in execution by lethal injection, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh.
The paper quoted by Ms. Martinuk was written by the Ethics Advisory Committee of the College, and included imputations of dishonesty directed against conscientious objectors within the profession which the College is unable to substantiate, but which it refuses to withdraw. It is difficult to see how this is consistent with justice nor non-maleficence, two ethical principles that are supposed to be upheld by ethics committees.
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project