Intended for healthcare professionals

Letters Assisted dying

Does the BMJ have a particular ideology to pursue in assisted dying?

BMJ 2012; 344 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e731 (Published 31 January 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e731
  1. Adrian M Houghton, general practitioner1
  1. 1Sheffield S10 4EF, UK
  1. meh125{at}doctors.org.uk

The BMJ continues its support of assisted dying by praising a self selected committee on assisted suicide chaired by an advocate of assisted suicide and euthanasia, Lord Falconer.

The BMA has questioned the independence of Lord Falconer’s commission and refused to give evidence to it. The BMA called on the BMJ editorial team to present a balanced and unbiased coverage of the commission.1 We have waited for this in vain.2

Why does the BMJ report on this small committee favouring euthanasia, while failing to report the German view. Last year’s German physicians’ conference (representing the largest doctors’ association in Europe) voted overwhelmingly against assisted suicide. Doctor participation in assisted dying (let alone euthanasia) is now prohibited in the professional code for German physicians.3

Professor Hollins, president elect of the BMA and past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, criticises the Falconer commission report. She writes: “Predictably, Lord Falconer’s commission is proposing physician-assisted suicide for those approaching the end of life. All previous proposals have been clear that anyone qualifying for help to die must not lack mental capacity. The trouble is that there seems to be little real understanding of what mental capacity means or how to establish such an understanding. Lord Falconer seems to believe that assessing mental capacity can be left safely in the hands of the patient’s GP and specialist. [Yet] many psychiatrists—I write as one myself—[would not] be comfortable with the idea of assessing patients for suitability to receive lethal drugs.”4

Does the BMJ’s editorial team have a particular ideology to pursue?

Notes

Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e731

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

View Abstract

Log in

Log in through your institution

Subscribe

* For online subscription