Re: Would judicial consent for assisted dying protect vulnerable people?
The "safeguards" for the "Assisted Suicide" Bill are completely inadequate, whilst the BMA itself warned MSPs that "there is no way to guarantee the absence of coercion in the context of Assisted Suicide."
In addition, I would like to quote the words of Dr William Toffler, Professor of Family Medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. He wrote in the "Wall Street Journal" of 17/08/2015,
"Since the voters of Oregon narrowly legalised physician-assisted suicide 20 years ago, there has been a profound shift in attitude toward medical care—new fear and secrecy, and a fixation on death. Well over 850 people have taken their lives by ingesting massive overdoses of barbiturates prescribed under the law. Proponents claim the system is working well with no problems. This is not true.
I have seen first-hand how the law has changed the relationship between doctors and patients, some of whom now fear that they are being steered toward assisted suicide.”
He says that Oregon is now using assisted suicide as a means of saving money, with cover for the practice included in medical insurance while important services and medications are omitted.
He asks: "Supporters claim physician-assisted suicide gives patients choice, but what sort of a choice is it when life is expensive but death is free?"
His conclusion is that "Assisted Suicide" has been detrimental to patients, degraded the quality of medical care and compromised the integrity of the medical profession.
Is it likely that the Marris Bill, based on the Oregon experience, will be any different?
Rapid Response:
Re: Would judicial consent for assisted dying protect vulnerable people?
The "safeguards" for the "Assisted Suicide" Bill are completely inadequate, whilst the BMA itself warned MSPs that "there is no way to guarantee the absence of coercion in the context of Assisted Suicide."
In addition, I would like to quote the words of Dr William Toffler, Professor of Family Medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. He wrote in the "Wall Street Journal" of 17/08/2015,
"Since the voters of Oregon narrowly legalised physician-assisted suicide 20 years ago, there has been a profound shift in attitude toward medical care—new fear and secrecy, and a fixation on death. Well over 850 people have taken their lives by ingesting massive overdoses of barbiturates prescribed under the law. Proponents claim the system is working well with no problems. This is not true.
I have seen first-hand how the law has changed the relationship between doctors and patients, some of whom now fear that they are being steered toward assisted suicide.”
He says that Oregon is now using assisted suicide as a means of saving money, with cover for the practice included in medical insurance while important services and medications are omitted.
He asks: "Supporters claim physician-assisted suicide gives patients choice, but what sort of a choice is it when life is expensive but death is free?"
His conclusion is that "Assisted Suicide" has been detrimental to patients, degraded the quality of medical care and compromised the integrity of the medical profession.
Is it likely that the Marris Bill, based on the Oregon experience, will be any different?
Competing interests: No competing interests