World Medical Association Reaffirms Opposition to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

News Release

World Medical Association

The World Medical Association has reaffirmed its long-standing policy of opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

After an intensive process of consultation with physicians and non physicians around the world, the WMA at its annual Assembly in Tbilisi, Georgia, adopted a revised Declaration on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

This states: ‘The WMA reiterates its strong commitment to the principles of medical ethics and that utmost respect has to be maintained for human life. Therefore, the WMA is firmly opposed to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.’

It adds: ‘No physician should be forced to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor should any physician be obliged to make referral decisions to this end.’

The Declaration says: ‘Separately, the physician who respects the basic right of the patient to decline medical treatment does not act unethically in forgoing or withholding unwanted care, even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.’

The revised Declaration defines euthanasia as ‘a physician deliberately administering a lethal substance or carrying out an intervention to cause the death of a patient with decision-making capacity at the patient’s own voluntary request.’

It says that physician-assisted suicide ‘refers to cases in which, at the voluntary request of a patient with decision-making capacity, a physician deliberately enables a patient to end his or her own life by prescribing or providing medical substances with the intent to bring about death.’

WMA Chair Dr. Frank Ulrich Montgomery said: ‘Having held consultative conferences involving every continent in the world, we believe that this revised wording is in accord with the views of most physicians worldwide.’

Doctors win right to challenge Royal College of Physicians’ controversial decision to go neutral on assisted suicide

News Release

Dermot Kearney, Kathy Myers, David Randall

A group of doctors have today won the legal right to challenge the Royal College of Physicians’ (RCP) controversial decision to go neutral on assisted suicide after overturning a ruling by the Charity Commission.

The doctors launched their legal action against Britain’s oldest medical group after it announced in March that the college was dropping its long-established opposition to assisted suicide, following a poll requiring a 60 per cent supra-majority.

At the time thousands of doctors voiced their concerns at decision to change the College’s position before consulting members, a failure to follow previous procedure and the unprecedented use of a supra- majority invalidated the poll. However, the RCP decided to press on with the change.

Following this decision, three doctors decided to launch legal action to review the decision and processes used by the College. They argued that the RCP had broken charity law. Despite agreement from the Charity Commission that it was a legally sustainable claim, the charities regulator withheld permission to allow the doctors to progress legal action, as they had already raised their concerns with the RCP and warned them not to repeat these mistakes.

Today, in the High Court, this decision by the Charity Commission has been reversed, giving the doctors a green light to take further action against the RCP.

Dr David Randall, one of the claimants commented: “Today’s judgement is good news for doctors and for society.

We believe that it is vitally important that doctors’ voices are heard on the issue of assisted dying, which if legalised would represent the single biggest change in the ethics and practice of medicine for a generation. The unsatisfactory way in which the College has approached this matter, ignoring the advice of its own ethics committee, has left it with a position of neutrality on assisted dying that prevents it from engaging in the public debate on this important issue. We expect the College to be active in championing key concerns such as the protection of vulnerable patients, the promotion of palliative care and hospice services, and the defence of conscientious objection for all healthcare practitioners. Doctors are not neutral about assisted dying, and neither should the College be.”

Paul Conrathe, Human rights solicitor from Sinclairslaw commented:

 “Today the court expressed its’ concern that the decision of the Royal College of Physicians to change its position to neutrality was unlawful and irrational. It was concerned that the College had adopted as its public position the least favoured option in its recent poll.

The College has suppressed the report of its own ethics committee into the results of the poll and adopted a supra-majority criteria that effectively pre-judged the outcome of that poll. Today the court has paved the way for the College to be brought to account.”

For media inquiries, please contact Alistair Thompson on 07970 162225.

ENDS

Notes to Editors

The Case In 2014 the College polled its member on changing the law on assisted suicide. They that nearly six in 10 (57.5 per cent) opposed any change.

The doctors contend that realising there was no appetite within the membership to support assisted suicide legislation, a small but influential group within the RCP sought to change the stance of the College to ‘neutral’ without consulting its members and then structuring a survey that required an unprecedented 60 per cent supra-majority in favour on continuing opposition to assisted suicide legislation.

Supra-majorities are usually used to prevent long-term constitutional changes being implemented by small but temporary majorities and thus they should always default to the status quo – in this instance opposition to legal change. Using a supra-majority in this consultation makes it almost inevitable that the College will drop its historic opposition to assisted suicide.

Crowdfunder

To help fund this legal challenge, on Friday 1 March, the doctors behind the JR launched a crowdfunder. It has already raised nearly £4,000 in just a few days.

The groups of doctors have made it clear any excess funds will be used at their discretion for related campaigns in opposition to assisted suicide. If there are remaining funds 12months after the conclusion of this case, they will go to the Association for Palliative Medicine.

You can see this here: https://www.gofundme.com/rcp-poll-challenge

Links

  • RCP to poll its members: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/rcp- poll-its-members-assisted-dying
  • Survey closed at 5pm on 1 March: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/rcp-poll-its-members- assisted-dying
  • Times covered the row that’s erupted thanks to the poll: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bitter-split-on-assisted- dying-hits-royal-college-of-physicians-vlj38b63w
  • 1,500 doctors back campaign against ‘tacit support’ plan: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1085158/assisted-dying- doctors-plea-campaign-health-debate-for-against-uk-dignitas
  • Judicial Review Crowdfunder: https://www.gofundme.com/rcp-poll- challenge The Doctors
  • Dr Dermot Kearney MRCP, Consultant Cardiologist, Gateshead
  • Dr Kathy Myers FRCP, Retired Consultant in Palliative Medicine, London
  • Dr David Randall MRCP, Registrar in Renal Medicine, London

Christian Medical Association Responds to Its Federal Court Victory Upholding Medical Judgment and Conscience Freedom

News Release

Christian Medical Association

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2019 /Standard Newswire/ — The Christian Medical Association, the nation’s largest faith-based professional medical organization, responded today to their victory in federal court for the conscience rights of medical professionals. The case, Franciscan Alliance v. Azar, sought relief from a 2016 federal regulation that threatened to drive religious doctors out of practice if they would not perform gender-transition procedures that violate their medical judgment and beliefs. Today’s ruling struck down the rule.

CMA CEO Dr. Michael Chupp noted, “Today’s victory in our federal court case in Texas against government coercion means doctors can continue to exercise medical judgment and ethical care based upon sound medical evidence and Hippocratic standards of patient care instead of any ideology. As our national polling has proven, doctors of faith endeavor to care for all patients regardless of whether or not we agree with their choices or values. But we need the freedom to exercise medical judgment and conscience convictions in order to practice medicine ethically and to provide the best and safest care to our patients.”

CMA Vice President for Government Relations and Director of Freedom2Care Jonathan Imbody added, “We are thankful for Becket’s excellent representation of our membership and their cogent presentation to the court of the legal grounds for this decision, which included the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That law provides essential protections against the current drive to replace religious freedom with ideological coercion, and we must resist all attempts to nullify the law and its protections consistent with our First Amendment.”

Becket is also currently fighting for the conscience rights of religious doctors on behalf of Dr. Regina Frost and the Christian Medical Association, in another case, New York v. HHS.

Freedom2Care conscience polling: www.freedom2care.org/polling

CONTACT: Margie Shealy, 888-230-2637, 423-341-4254 cell, margie.shealy@cmda.org

Distinguishing between elective abortions and other medical interventions

Joint response to ACOG

News Release

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Christian Medical Dental Association, American College of Pediatricians

As organizations representing over 25,000 medical professionals, we would like to correct the errors and assumptions of the recently released joint statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH).

We state unequivocally that there is a difference between elective abortion – a procedure done to ensure that a baby is born dead -and the separation of the mother and the baby in order to save the life of the mother. ACOG leadership is deceptively hiding behind the confusion about the meaning of the word “abortion” to imply that such treatments to save the life of the mother are the same as elective abortions.

A separation procedure to treat maternal pathology INTENDS to save the lives of both the mother and her baby if possible. In contrast, an abortion, which the general public understands to mean “elective abortion”, INTENDS to deliver a dead baby. That is why a baby born ALIVE after an elective abortion is called a “Failed Abortion”. The separation of the baby from the mother did not fail. What failed to occur is that her baby “failed” to be killed.

We are glad that ACOG and PRH leadership recognize what all pro-life obstetricians know – that sometimes treatments which result in the separation of the mother and the baby are necessary to save the mother’s life. However, ACOG and PRH leadership disingenuously imply in their statement that these life saving procedures are the same as elective abortions.

The ACOG leaders’ advocacy of elective abortion is out of step with the 85% of OB/GYN’s who do not perform abortions. Their extreme advocacy for elective abortion through birth does not represent the majority opinion of either ACOG membership, or the majority opinion of all the rest of the obstetricians and gynecologists in this country.

Respectfully,

Donna J. Harrison M.D. dip. ABOG
Executive Director
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Mike Chupp MD, FACS, FCS(ECSA) CEO
Christian Medical Dental Association

Michelle Cretella, M.D.
Executive Director
American College of Pediatricians

Click Here to Download PDF

Abortion Can Be Medically Necessary

News Release

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Physicians for Reproductive Health

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Physicians for Reproductive Health released the following joint statement:

“The science of medicine is not subjective, and a strongly held personal belief should never outweigh scientific evidence, override standards of medical care, or drive policy that puts a person’s health and life at risk.

“Pregnancy imposes significant physiological changes on a person’s body. These changes can exacerbate underlying or preexisting conditions, like renal or cardiac disease, and can severely compromise health or even cause death. Determining the appropriate medical intervention depends on a patient’s specific condition.  There are situations where pregnancy termination in the form of an abortion is the only medical intervention that can preserve a patient’s health or save their life. 

“As physicians, we are focused on protecting the health and lives of the patients for whom we provide care. Without question, abortion can be medically necessary.”

Contact

Jen Girdish
jgirdish@prh.org
(646) 649-9927

ACOG Communications Office
Washington, DC
202-484-3321
communications@acog.org