Assisted dying: a question of when, not if
BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2128 (Published 09 September 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2128Read our coverage of the assisted dying debate
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
If anecdotal reports (1) (2) and statistics showing a positive correlation between midazolam prescriptions and deaths in the over-65s (3) are to be believed, it appears that euthanasia may have already been taking place on an illegal basis, predominantly in care homes.
Since benzodiazepines are contraindicated in Acute Pulmonary Insufficiency, risking Respiratory Depression, particularly with intravenous administration (4), the increased use of midazolam during 2020/2021 is especially concerning.
Would doctors who have not adequately physically examined patients, thereby satisfying themselves that sedation is appropriate in every case, particularly in situations which include pulmonary symptomatology, and have subsequently not adequately monitored such treatment such that respiratory failure has ensued, be guilty of medical negligence? (5)
In the current environment where ‘Telemedicine’ has disrupted doctor-patient interactions (6) yet continues to be encouraged by politicians as reported, for example, by the Telegraph, rushing into legislation authorising Assisted Dying at this point in time would surely be premature and present many opportunities for abuse.
Palliative Care is clearly vitally important. However, relief of distress, whilst sometimes inevitably leading to death, does not have as its primary intention the ending of life.
“First, Do No Harm”, has never encompassed Playing God; it has been resisted by physicians for many years and for very good reason.
Further undermining the trust of an already terrified population at this stage would surely be a step too far?
(1) Fuller A. Care homes accused of using powerful sedatives to make coronavirus victims die more quickly as use rocketed 100%. The Sun 2020 Jul 12.
(2) Interview with Funeral Director, UK: Deaths Jumped 250% When Injections Began: Lindie Naughton Interviews Funeral Director John O'Looney. BitChute 2021 Sep 5.
(3) All cause mortality by age band (65 and over), January 2020 - June 2021, vs National prescriptions issued for midazolam hydrochloride 10 ml/2 mg ampoules for injection, January 2020 - March 2021
(4) https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/midazolam.html#contraIndications
(5) https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/goo...
(6) https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3603/rr
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
The articles in the present BMJ promoting the killing of patients (under all its methods) confounds the issue and confuses people. There is a real difference between palliative care - which is motivated to make a person's last days as comfortable and bearable as possible - and mercy killing - which is motivated to actively and consciously terminate a life. Both sets of proponents could be classed as caring people who want what they see as best for their patients. A palliative care doctor may hasten death by administering opiates to relieve pain but the intent is not to kill but to comfort. A similar scenario may (and does) play out with a euthanasia doctor but the intent here may also be to reduce suffering but with the intention to kill. The palliative care doctor does not have malice of intent.
It seems that the crucial issue is around quality control (are some lives more sacred than others and who can decide when a life "is not worth living?"). The elderly, frail, disabled and vulnerable are at high risk from such evaluations and the most valuable foundation of human society is violated - the right to have one's freedom and life protected and respected.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
The editor in chief of the BMJ calls on professional organisations to adopt a neutral stance on assisted dying as “a decision to legalise assisted dying is for society and parliament to make.”(1) However, rather than heeding her own call, she and her editorial team have adopted a strong campaigning position in favour of legalising a medicalised model of assisted dying in which “it is doctors who will counsel and refer patients – and assenting doctors who will do assessments and prescribe the drugs”(2). It is difficult to see how doctors or their professional organisations could be neutral about such a role.
Despite the BMJ’s strong campaigning stance, the editors appear remarkably uninterested in addressing the assumptions and consequences of the medicalised model they advocate. There is a strong body of evidence demonstrating that the desire to hasten death in those with advanced and terminal illnesses is highly complex, multidimensional and changeable, and strongly influenced by psychosocial and existential issues, such as feeling a burden on others, hopelessness, depression and lack of social support (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8); it is not fundamentally different to suicidal ideation in other circumstances. However, medically assisted dying requires doctors to respond in a radically different way to a patient expressing the desire to end their life depending on the presence or absence of an eligible medical condition (in Baroness Meacher’s Bill currently going through the House of Lords, a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than 6 months – with experience from Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium indicating that this arbitrary criteria is unlikely to survive legal challenge, and would subsequently be extended to include a much wider range of illnesses and disabilities). In the absence of an eligible condition, a doctor is expected to support their patient through their suffering: addressing issues amenable to intervention, helping them to rediscover hope, meaning and purpose, and doing everything possible to prevent suicide. The doctor demonstrates that they value their patient’s life at a time when the patient is struggling to do so themselves. In contrast, a doctor would be expected to respond to a patient with an eligible illness or disability by assisting them to end their life – validating their patient’s assessment that their life is no longer worth living, and legitimising a negative societal view about the value of life lived with illness and disability. While “counselling”, “referring”, “assessing” and “prescribing” sound like familiar and innocuous medical tasks, acting as society’s arbiter of what makes a life worth living is not.
The editors try to reassure their medical audience by stating that individual doctors could opt out of personal involvement in medically assisted dying. It is true that the Meacher Bill has a provision for conscientious objection, and even if medically-assisted dying became rapidly normalised, as is starting to happen in Canada, and opting not to be involved became viewed as “denying patients the medical care that these patients are entitled to” (9), healthcare professionals could retrain in areas that do not involve contact with eligible patients, or even leave their professions altogether. However, there is no such reassurance for those with the illnesses and disabilities that would make them eligible for assisted dying, who would not be able to opt out of being offered an assisted death (and opt into the suicide prevention approach that other patients receive) if they express the desire to end their life during a period of despair. Similarly, wider society would not be able to opt out of the further devaluation of the lives of those who deviate too far from an apparently independent, economically productive ideal. In jurisdictions where medically assisted dying has been legalised, the consequences are already being seen. In Oregon, official data document progressive increases in both the number and proportion of patients who receive a medically assisted death because of concerns about being a burden on others (10). And the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities has reported serious concerns about people with disabilities in Canada being pressured to seek medical assistance in dying instead of receiving viable care options (11).
If society and parliament decide that mentally competent adults should be assisted to end their lives at a time of their choosing there is no practical reason why the medical profession should be involved, as provision of a standardised lethal dose of a toxic chemical for oral self-administration does not require any medical knowledge or skills. If the medical profession is not to be involved, medical organisations may choose to adopt a neutral stance. Removing the legitimising role of the medical profession would expose the discriminatory assumptions behind using illness or disability to determine how society should respond to a person’s expressed desire to end their life. This would facilitate a clearer discussion about the potential societal responses to people with mental capacity and a consistent desire to end their life prematurely, and a more open evaluation of the associated ethical and practical trade-offs.
I have explored the consequences of the medicalised model of assisted dying and the implications of demedicalising the assisted dying debate in more depth in my article https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m2919 (12), and in my replies to the subsequent ‘rapid responses’. The BMJ have put my article behind a paywall, but I can send a manuscript version to individuals on request.
1. Godlee F. It’s time for all doctors to engage on assisted dying BMJ 2021; 374 :n2206 doi:10.1136/bmj.n2206
2. Hurley R, Richards T, Godlee F. Assisted dying: a question of when, not if BMJ 2021; 374 :n2128 doi:10.1136/bmj.n2128
3. Monforte-Royo C, Villavicencio-Chávez C, Tomás-Sábado J, Balaguer A. The wish to hasten death: A review of clinical studies. Psycho-Oncology. 2011.
4. Hendry M, Pasterfield D, Lewis R, Carter B, Hodgson D, Wilkinson C. Why do we want the right to die? A systematic review of the international literature on the views of patients, carers and the public on assisted dying. Palliat Med. 2013;27(1):13–26.
5. Monforte-Royo C, Villavicencio-Chávez C, Tomás-Sábado J, Mahtani-Chugani V, Balaguer A. What lies behind the wish to hasten death? a systematic review and meta-ethnography from the perspective of patients. PLoS One. 2012;7(5).
6. Emanuel EJ, Fairclough DL, Emanuel LL. Attitudes and desires related to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among terminally ill patients and their caregivers. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;284(19):2460–8.
7. Ohnsorge K, Gudat H, Rehmann-Sutter C. Intentions in wishes to die: Analysis and a typology - A report of 30 qualitative case studies of terminally ill cancer patients in palliative care. Psychooncology. 2014;23(9):1021–6.
8. Rosenfeld B, Pessin H, Marziliano A, Jacobson C, Sorger B, Abbey J, et al. Does desire for hastened death change in terminally ill cancer patients? Soc Sci Med. 2014;111:35–40.
9. Savulescu J, Schuklenk U. Doctors have no right to refuse medical assistance in dying, abortion or contraception. Bioethics. 2017;31(3):162–70.
10. Oregon Health Authority. Death with Dignity Act Annual Reports. [https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARC...
11. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. End of Mission Statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, Ms. Catalina Devandas-Aguilar, on her visit to Canada. Ottawa, 12 April 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24481&...
12. Thomas H L. Demedicalisation: radically reframing the assisted dying debate—an essay by Lucy Thomas BMJ 2020; 371 :m2919 doi:10.1136/bmj.m2919
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
There should be information available to people which can be sensitively handled by sign posting to it not just in medical situations or the occasional media broadcast. There could be a place in Advance Directives, although not everyone is even made aware of these yet. They are not written in stone so decisions can be revised if wished.
The information would need to explain how a procedure would be carried out and who would be involved. Even now a woman who wants a termination of pregnancy will not know the doctor's position until she needs a procedure. How are individuals to know who supports assisted dying? A register woud be useful but probably not be safe to be made public. There is no information mandatory on practice leaflets regarding positions on terminations although the religious and ethical beliefs of a doctor will vary.
It cannot be claimed that the public as a whole sees the medical profession as trustworthy, not only historically but throughout the world presently it has not been the body alone which can be trusted to oversee the protections of vulnerable people. There are many groups and organisations which have needed to set themselves up to speak for themselves and protect others. The present pandemic is a stark example whereby massive numbers of the population have died uneccessarily, many belonging to vulnerable groups, notably frail or just elderly; people with disabilities and others who would have been out of sight had it not been for families and concerned citizens speaking out.
Politicians make policy but the medical profession also has a responsibility which it needs to honestly own up to along with politicians, scientists and others. And include in any learning if it is proposed that guidelines will be set up. The individuals who signed off people with Covid were 'my /our patients' Doctors who have forced terminations on women, who cut off limbs as punishments for crimes follow orders. An alternative preference for some is to manage our own deaths but there need to be better ways than can be managed as is described in publications on Euthanasia These are in the public domain but are not accessible to all.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
It is with weary incredulity that I read the suggestion of the BMJ’s editorial team this week that “UK doctors must now engage with the debate” on assisted dying.[1] The arguments for and against assisted dying are nothing if not well-rehearsed.
On the basis of low participation numbers in the related polls of professional organisations, a meaningless tautology is offered that UK doctor engagement on the issue over many years has been inadequate, thus justifying the near one-sided presentation of the BMJ for the enlightenment of us all. Frankly this is jingoistic, disingenuous, and has been used to justify an unfortunate misappropriation of the BMJ’s editorial independence.
This week the editorial team have served up their own questionable argument in favour of a change in the law, together with a congruent and unopposed opinion piece that appears to settle the ‘God barrier’ (it doesn’t), although an acknowledgement of alternative views is given in Ole Hartling’s essay. This will not be the last contentious issue on which the BMJ has the possibility of raising the quality of national conversation. On such topics, where finely balanced views are held with equal passion, can you really suggest that you are serving your readers best interests with such blatant editorial bias?
Yours sincerely,
Stuart J Fergusson
MBChB, BSc (Med Sci), ChM, FRCS, DRCOG, PGCAP, FHEA
1. Hurley R, Richards T, Godlee F. Assisted dying: a question of when, not if BMJ 2021; 374 :n2128 doi:10.1136/bmj.n2128
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
The legalisation of assisted suicide would not only be the death knell for many of our vulnerable patients, but also for freedom for the medical profession, due to a toxic mixture with the campaign for restrictions on conscientious objection.
Respect for others' freedom was reflected in the recent BMA poll on assisted dying as, even though 50% supported a change in the law to permit assisted dying, only 36% of those polled would be personally willing to prescribe lethal drugs [1]. The results were more disparate for Euthanasia, with 37% supporting a change in the law, but only 26% willing to participate in any way in the process of administering drugs with the intention of ending an eligible patient's life. This infers that although some BMA members would support a legal framework, the majority (74%) would not be prepared to harm their patients, even if this were legal. They value freedom of opinion and so would tolerate others' views, but also expect their personal choice to be respected, even if there be a change in law.
Many health care practitioners would find referral complicit and an unacceptable degree of involvement in assisted dying. However, they would not restrict the freedom of others, so would be prepared to 'signpost', to let them know where they can go for another opinion. This would be in line with the current GMC position [2].
There is a subtle but real difference between referral and signposting and it works well for abortion [3]. It should be maintained in the name of freedom.
[1] BMA Physician-assisted dying survey Thursday 8 October 2020
Physician-assisted dying survey (bma.org.uk) https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/end-of-life/physician-a...
[2] General Medical Council. Good medical practice. London: GMC, 2019 Paragraph 52. Personal beliefs and medical practice
[3] Glasgow GPs do not need refer at all these days, only point to the Sandyford open access service.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
At a meeting of my BMA division I proposed a motion in 2019 that the B M A retain its position of opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia.
I argued that there is often uncertainty over diagnosis at the end of life where there are multiple morbidities, major difficulties with prognosis, and the near impossibility of knowing whether patients was acting freely.
It was put to the vote of those present and supported by 7 to 4 members. It was taken to the A R M but not debated. Pity !
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
So many groups want to get involved. Whether it is to some extent a desire to control the issue or not who can tell - In some ways it mirrors the struggles around the issue of abortion. Lawers; medics; pharmacists; family and carers; politicians; advocates for and against assisted dying, psychiatrists, psychologists.. Their position is not neutral. Let's hope disputes between them is not losing sight of the individual who wishes to make their own decision ,with the Help of someone who is committed to help , but not make the ultimate decision about something as sacred as one's own life..
I am submitting another response as a negleted issue is that the adverse effect of many drugs has the effect of causing suicidal thoughts. This warning is specificaly stated on information for prescribed psychiatric and other drugs and highlighted by campaigning groups of people who have lost those close to them as a result of suicide . There is a danger the two, a request for assisted death and suicidal thoughts caused by prescribed drugs may be conflated especially when these days there is no guarantee that the person has a health worker who knows them well. Some People can make their views known through specific groups who to some extent represent them but have vested interests in protecting their organisations from losing funding if a position is taken to support assisted dying. There is no independant response published as yet from individuals with mental ill-health about how they want to navigate a request for assisted death which will no doubt have many caveats included in any formal process. Even if assisted dying comes into law it is likely sadly that more will die of suicide than go through the process required for assisted dying,
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
Your editorial (Editorial, BMJ, 9 September 2021) perpetuates myths about ‘assisted dying’ by making it sound like a well-established, evidence-based health care intervention. It is not.
The editorial also leaves many crucially important questions unanswered. How will legalisation of ‘assisted dying’ impact on end of life care? Will people be safe from abuse and coercion if they have mental health problems and/ or are already feeling a burden upon their families or health and social care services? How will two doctors assess a settled wish to die and a lack of coercion especially if they have not met the person before? Will prognostication of life expectancy be accurate? Are the drugs that will be used safe and effective?
Contrary to your assertion that there are no reports of negative impacts on palliative care services in jurisdictions where physician assisted suicide and/ or physician administered euthanasia are legal, there is in fact increasing evidence of significant negative impact including pressure for Canadian hospices to deliver ‘medically assisted deaths’ or lose their statutory funding. None of these jurisdictions collect or report data necessary to determine if people choosing to consider ‘assisted dying’ are safe from abuse and coercion. Several legislatures have expanded eligibility criteria to include people without decision-making capacity. Prognostication is notoriously inaccurate; we get it wrong sometimes over hours and days let alone months. The combinations of drugs in high doses used to achieve physician assisted suicide have not been submitted to scientific scrutiny. The scanty evidence available on how people die after ingesting these lethal drugs suggests that they can cause unpleasant symptoms and death is not necessarily immediate or certain2.
For all these reasons we should heed what health care professionals from Canada, Oregon and Belgium are saying (https://youtu.be/ANS-7P2zcRk; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nvJo15CCuA) and not follow their example.
1 Gerson SM, Koksvik GH, Materstvedt LJ, Clark D. Assisted dying and palliative care in three jurisdictions: Flanders, Oregon and Quebec. Annals of Palliative Medicine; 2020
2 Oregon Death with Dignity Act: annual reports. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH...
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Assisted dying: a question of when, not if
Dear Editor, I have analysed with interest the rapid responses to “Assisted dying: a question of when, not if”, finding that of the 11 responses to date the ratio of opposition:support is 11:0. My take on this is that this reflects a response to the significantly partisan stance of the BMJ, which is not proportionately representative of Membership views. Today, 14 September 2021, I find an objective summary of these responses in the form of a rapid response by Eugene Breen “Mercy Killing - Malice of intent”, whereby an incontrovertible clarification of the difference between palliative care (which is motivated to make a person's last days as comfortable and bearable as possible) and mercy killing is made. Nothing could be clearer than that the legal doctrine of “Malice Aforethought” in this context runs contrary to the Hippocratic Oath (and its subsequent updates) where it reads “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan”.
This is exemplified in 1) Ole Hartling’s article in the same edition p311-312 “Euthanasia and assisted dying: the illusion of autonomy”, and 2) James Haslam in “‘Assisted dying’ is a Rubicon we must not cross” at https://www.doctors.net.uk/blog/opinions/2021/09/09/assisted-dying-is-a-... (James was the lead physician in keeping the Skripals alive for their sakes in Salisbury, 2018, and to enable the origin of their lethal dose of Novichok to be determined).
My conviction on this matter originated during my attendance on a ward round with Dame Cicely Saunders at St Christopher’s Hospice in 1977. Following this I have resisted the many attempts at legislation to alter the Statute Book in favour of assisted dying, starting with my opposition to Lord Joffe’s Bill in 2003, where Lord Patten quoted my note to him, as follows:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2003-06-06/debates/bf190b92-0209-402...(AssistedDying)BillHl
Lord Patten: "Secondly, I should like to borrow the words of Jocelyn Cherry, a medical student at the University of Bristol School of Medicine, who wrote to me out of the blue on 19th May to say: "There are good treatments available for symptoms prompting euthanasia requests and we should be using them, offering our patients the best care possible, not killing them"— and going on to opine— "Euthanasia seems to me to promote 'lazy medicine"'. Just so, my Lords. I should now like to borrow some words from a couple of doctors who were kind enough to write. First I quote from Dr John Etherton, a general practitioner who wrote on 24th May stating that: "I did not spend 9 years of my life ... training to be a GP ... only to be told I can now legally kill my patients". A professor of surgery, Professor Jonathan Shepherd, told me in a letter on the 20th May that, "adding the ability to kill people to treatment options would have a devastating effect on the doctor-patient relationship". There we reach the nub.
I rest my case herewith.
Competing interests: No competing interests