British Section of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life

From The Sunday Times

Given no other way to end their lives, patients are choosing an Euthanasia agonising death with the help of GPs

Sadness at the prolonged illness of young Hannah Jones is only exceeded by sadness at the heavy-handed paternalism that decided Hereford Hospital consultants to try to remove her from her family and home and force her to have a heart transplant against her considered will. Her reasons are her own but perhaps include some realisation that living hearts can only come from living bodies, as well as her generosity in thinking of others who are waiting for such an operation.

As we admire her courage, we can pray that she will continue to enjoy life at home for much longer than is at present anticipated.

Dr David J Hill.

By Wesley J. Smith

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 06, 2008

One of the most important services that medical professionals can offer to the people they serve, I think, is to declare their offices and facilities to be "assisted suicide free zones." Indeed, I hope that medical organizations create plaques and certificates to that doctors and health care facilities can mount on office walls.

Some hospitals are already on this bandwagon, declaring that assisted suicides will not be permitted on premises: From the story:

While Washington voters made it legal for doctors to help terminally ill residents end their lives, opponents of the assisted suicide measure indicated Wednesday they will continue to resist the practice...Eastern Washington's largest hospital system, Providence Health and Services, will forbid physicians from helping patients die at its hospitals, nursing homes and assisted care centers. "Providence will not support physician-assisted suicide within its ministries," the owner of Sacred Heart Medical Center and Holy Family Hospital said in a prepared statement. "This position is grounded in our basic values of respect for the sacredness of life, compassionate care of dying and vulnerable persons, and respect for the integrity of medical, nursing and allied health professions. We do not believe health care providers should ever be put in a position of aiding a patient in taking his or her own life."

This is important. Medical professionals must resist turning killing (which means to end life) into a medical treatment. None can be forced (yet) to participate. Such modeling may save lives of people who, thanks to the continued professionals of non participating medical professionals, will never ask for assisted suicide. And it will give courage to others to resist the culture of death that this way comes.

Of course, eventually the ideologues will try and force people to participate or be complicit in the killing, as I have written here at SHS. In the end, the culture of death brooks no dissent. But dissent we must, and resist we will.

From Wesley J. Smith, 18 June 2008.

The doctors in the Winnipeg Samuel Golubchuk case are intent on showing his family and society who is boss. Two more have resigned rather than provide care. From the story:

CBC News has learned that two other doctors--Bojan Paunovic and David Easton--have also said they will no longer care for Golubchuk.
"What I can tell you is that there are three critical care doctors who have recently resigned from the [intensive care unit] shift schedule at the Grace Hospital," said Heidi Graham, spokeswoman for the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. The WRHA is working with other physicians to ensure the hospital can continue to provide critical care despite the loss of the three doctors, Graham said.

A few thoughts: First, this seems a power play to me--even though I have no doubt that the physicians sincerely believe that maintaining Mr. Golubchuk is the wrong way to go. Second, in their determination, they are, in effect, abandoning other patients in their care. Third, the court is precisely where this case belongs. If wanted life-sustaining treatment is really so egregious that it is torture--rather than merely a matter of a profound disagreement over values--doctors and hospital bioethics committees should have to prove it in an open court with full rights of due process and appeal for the patient/family. Moreover, I think the hospital should pay the legal expenses of the patient/family otherwise it becomes David versus Goliath.

And now, let's ponder this paradox. The Bioethics and Medical Establishments generally insist on the right to withhold wanted life sustaining treatment based on their views about the quality of the patient's life and/or the proper use of the resources involved. In contrast, they also insist that doctors and other medical professionals appalled by birth control, Plan B, RU 486, abortion, or (eventually) assisted suicide should not be able to opt out based on their moral principles because patients have a right to these services. Yet, the futile care cases involve life and death while the others usually are elective in the sense that there are not lethal consequences for the denial of services.

In reality, it isn't a paradox because the medical issues are actually the fronts for the real contest, which is about determining the first principle moral values that will govern general society--as, when I think about it, are many if not most of the issues that we discuss here at SHS.

From Wesley J. Smith

A cancer patient killed himself a day after being told he had been refused a wonder drug by his local primary care trust.Terminally-ill Albert Baxter, 75, committed suicide hours after learning he had been turned down for a drug which could have prolonged his life and shrunk his tumour.

In desperation, the cancer sufferer offered to pay for the drug, only to be told that he would have to foot the bill for his entire treatment which he could not afford. The pensioner, who was diagnosed with renal cancer in January 2007, had been told by his oncologist, Dr Fiona McKinna that the drug Sutent was his only hope...

But when he learned that his appeal had been rejected he returned to his home in Eastbourne, East Sussex. He was found dead the next day by his partner with a bin liner over his head in June last year. His partner of 30 years, Barrie Curryer, 70, a retired nurse, hit out at the postcode lottery for cancer treatment.He said: "What really upset him was that he worked all his life and paid into the health system and was refused treatment."

From Wesley J. Smith

ALS, called Lou Gehrig's disease in the USA and motor neurone disease in the UK, is the bloody flag often waved by euthanasia activists as a reason to legalize mercy killing. "Of course he wants to die," they will say. and then some will assert falsely and cruelly that death from ALS will agonizing by choking on saliva, even though patients receiving proper care do not die choking.

My last hospice patient died peacefully in his sleep from ALS. While I was with him, euthanasia was in the news with ALS patients featured on ABC Nightline as wanting euthanasia. Bob was fit to be tied! After being suicidal for more than two years--because he felt so abandoned by his friends, not due to the disease--he told me that his ending period was the best time of his life. (Yet, had assisted suicide been legal, he would have probably missed the good times--or so he told me. But people from Compassion and Choices say that people like Bob can't commit suicide because their lives are already over.) And he is not the only ALS patient I have known with that incredibly positive attitude.

Now, there is some journal evidence that ALS patients quality of life is not unremitting horror. From the story:

Although an outside observer would have expected ALS patients to be depressed, as the disease is so serious, this was only the case for 10% of patients. This means that the proportion of depressive disorders is only slightly greater than in the overall population.

In view of the public discussion on euthanasia and assisted suicide, the authors think it essential that there should be a scientific investigation of the quality of life, as seen by the patient. The present studies show that the quality of life of patients with a fatal degenerative disease does not necessarily have to differ from that of healthy subjects.

In an accompanying editorial, Professor Hans Förstl points out the significance of these studies for the discussion of measures to shorten life. These could no longer be simply justified by saying that the patient had to be freed from his suffering. Förstl commented that the suffering is seen by the observer and not felt by the patient.

Not that the pro euthanasia types will care. For them, it's an ideological quest, not an empirically driven cause.

'To say, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel'

WorldNetDaily

State officials have offered a lung cancer patient the option of having the Oregon Health Plan, set up in 1994 to ration health care, pay for an assisted suicide but not for the chemotherapy prescribed by her physician.

The story appears to be a happy ending for Barbara Wagner, who has been notified by a drug manufacturer that it will provide the expensive medication, estimated to cost $4,000 a month, for the first year and then allow her to apply for further treatment, according to a report in the Eugene Register-Guard.

But the word from the state was coverage for palliative care, which would include the state's assisted suicide program, would be allowed but not coverage for the cancer treatment drugs.

"To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," Wagner told the newspaper. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"

She said she was devastated when the state health program refused coverage for Tarceva, the drug her doctor ordered for treatment of her lung cancer.

The refusal came in an unsigned letter from LIPA, the company that runs the state program in that part of Oregon.

"We had no intent to upset her, but we do need to point out the options available to her under the Oregon Health Plan," Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA, told the newspaper.

"I understand the way it was interpreted. I'm not sure how we can lift that. The reality is, at some level (doctor-assisted suicide) could be considered as a palliative or comfort care measure."

The 64-year-old Wagner lives in a low-income apartment in Springfield with her dog, the newspaper said.

State officials say the Oregon Health Plan prioritizes treatments, with diagnoses and ailments deemed the most important, such as pregnancy, childbirth and preventive care for children at the top of the list. Other treatments rank below, officials said.

"We can't cover everything for everyone," Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, told the paper. "Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people."

He said many cancer treatments are a high priority, but others reflect the "desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile."

Wagner, however, is ending up with the treatment needed when her lung cancer, in remission for two years, returned.

She reported a representative for the pharmaceutical company called and notified her the drug would be provided for at least the first year.

"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon," said the "Bioethics Pundit" on the Bioethics blog. "Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered."

"This isn't the first time this has happened either," the blogger wrote. "A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide. But not to worry. Just keep repeating the mantra: There are no abuses with Oregon's assisted suicide law. There are no abuses. There are no abuses!

If you kill another human being, however much you love them, you should face a court of law

Shockingly, even today, it appears that the British courts can get it right. Their record in dealing with “mercy killings” provides evidence that we do not need the blunt instrument of a new law legalising euthanasia/assisted suicide.

Robert Cook, 60, suffocated his wife of 29 years with a plastic bag after she took an overdose. Vanessa Cook had worsening multiple sclerosis and had written of her wish to die. On Friday her husband received a 12-month suspended sentence, after pleading guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. The judge called it an exceptional case. Last November Stephen Jobling, 52, was also given a 12-month suspended sentence after a bungled suicide pact with his ailing 72-year-old wife. Both survived taking a drug overdose.

Not all “mercy killings” are seen in the same way. Last May a jury found Frank Lund, 52, guilty of murder for smothering his wife. Patricia Lund, 62, suffered from depression and irritable bowel syndrome, but was not terminally ill. The judge called the case “highly unusual, if not unique” and imposed a tariff of only three years.

All of which proves that courts are still capable of deciding each case on its merits, taking a humane view of people whose lives are blighted by the suffering of loved ones while starting from the premise stated by the judge in the Lund case: “It is the duty of citizens in this country not to take any steps which might lead to the death of another citizen.”

The danger now is that a sweeping new law on euthanasia and assisted suicide would give the official nod to taking “any steps which might lead to the death of another citizen”. We could end up with Swiss-style euthanasia clinics, where Brits who are not dying but feeling depressed have already gone to kill themselves.

Even without a law, the trend for viewing euthanasia as legitimate can lead to tragic cases. A drunken Jennifer Allwood decided it would be a “mercy” to smother her 67-year-old cancer-stricken father - who didn't want to die. He fought back and survived. In December Allwood received a 12-month suspended sentence for attempted murder after the court decided she had not hastened his subsequent death. Her bitter family said she got off far too lightly: “It's just giving the impression that any relative who's got cancer, let's kill them off, it's quicker.”

That impression would be written into law by legalising assisted suicide. You don't have to be a religious nutter to oppose it. The libertarian Marxist in me is against giving the courts wider jurisdiction over our lives. But one thing that should still come before a judge and jury is the taking of a life, however much the accused loved the deceased. One universal right I don't want from the State is the right to kill my wife - or vice versa.

Nurses Opposed to Euthnasia are holding a National Study Day entitled 'Understanding the Mental Capacity Act' on Tuesday 20th November, 9:30-5:00 at Guys Hospital. If you would like to attend send a letter detailing your name, address, telephone number(s) and dietary requirements with a cheque for £60 made payable to Ms Teresa Lynch to:

Ms Teresa Lynch (Nurses Opposed to Euthanasia)
168 Earls Court Road
Earls Court
London
SW5 9QQ

LifeNews.com Editor

October 8, 2007

Milan, Italy (LifeNews.com) -- An Italian court has denied a request by a disabled woman's father to remove her feeding tube and authorize her death by starvation and dehydration. Eluana Englaro has been a coma for 15 years after an automobile accident seriously injured her and, this year, her father asked a Milan court for permission to remove her feeding tube.

This isn't the first time Englaro's case had been in court.

In April 2005, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed a lower court ruling to keep her feeding tube in place.

That case had also been brought by Englaro's father, who believes that she would have preferred to die. The court rejected the argument because there was no specific evidence on Englaro's views of life and death.

In addition, the court's opinion stated that to remove the tube required, "valuations of life and death that are rooted in concepts of an ethical or religious nature, which are extrajudicial."

The Italian case has drawn comparisons to that of Terri Schiavo, the disabled American woman whose ex-husband won permission from the court to take her life.

It also hearkens to Piergiorgio Welby, a euthanasia activist afflicted with muscular-dystrophy who had a doctor kill him in a euthanasia bid that is still under investigation.

Read the original here.

From Care Not Killing Alliance.

The Care Not Killing Alliance has warned Parliament, the public and the media not to be misled by a report published today that downplays the risk to vulnerable people posed by the legalisation of euthanasia. The warning comes amidst fears that fresh attempts will shortly be made to legalise the practice in Britain, most likely beginning with Scotland, which is seen as a soft target by pro-euthanasia advocates. Dr Peter Saunders, Campaign Director of Care Not Killing, warned:

People should be aware that the prominence being given to this new review is part of a deliberate campaign to soften up the British public for the legalisation of euthanasia. In the Netherlands healthcare is covered by insurance, but in the UK most people rely on the State. In a cash-strapped NHS, where hospitals are being closed and elder abuse is on the rise, there is growing prejudice against the chronically ill and disabled who are seen as disproportionate consumers of limited resources. Legalising euthanasia would place vulnerable lives at risk. And the Dutch statistics, when properly examined, actually raise great cause for concern.

DAILY MAIL (London)

Read the original here.

25 September 2007

By Jill Parkin

None of us likes to imagine such a terrible fate, but this much I do know: If I am ever in a coma I would like to be treated by Muslim or Catholic doctors, because if they're in charge, at least I know I will not be starved to death.

How extraordinary to think that in doing so - in the simple act of keeping me alive - they could be breaking the law.

From the beginning of October, the Mental Capacity Act comes into force, making criminals out of doctors if they insist on feeding coma patients who have earlier said they'd rather die.

It will be a black Monday for healthcare in the UK.

DAILY MAIL (London)

September 24, 2007 Monday

BY Simon Caldwell and Daniel Martin

MUSLIM MEDICS SAY THEY WILL REFUSE TO LET PATIENTS WITH 'LIVING WILLS' DIE

MUSLIM doctors warned yesterday that they would rather go to jail than allow patients to die in accordance with 'living wills'.

The new Mental Capacity Act allows patients to write the wills, instructing doctors not to try to save them if they become incapacitated.

It also allows patients to give 'lasting powers of attorney' to a friend or relative who would be able to instruct doctors to starve to death a patient who becomes incapacitated.

Doctors who refuse to carry out such instructions risk prosecution for assault and a possible jail term.

However, the Islamic Medical Association is urging its members to defy the Act, which comes into force next Monday. It fears the law will compel Muslim doctors to stop life-preserving treatment or remove tubes providing food and water.

Read the original here.

By Simon Caldwell

9/19/2007

Catholic News Service

LONDON (CNS) – Medical ethicists in Britain said a Vatican document reiterating that it is a moral obligation to provide food and water to patients in a vegetative state will encourage doctors to defy living wills.

Anthony Ozimic, political director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said the document released Sept. 14 by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was "highly significant" for England and Wales, where the Mental Capacity Act will take effect Oct. 1.

The act "runs directly contrary to the (Vatican) statement's principles," he said in a written statement Sept. 18.

"The Mental Capacity Act allows, and in some cases requires, food and water to be denied to mentally incapacitated, nondying persons," Ozimic said.

"This will place conscientious health workers in a serious dilemma," he added. "They may be forced to choose between continuing to feed patients and participating in a regime of starvation and dehydration."

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Read the original here.

First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a “vegetative state” morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?

Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state”, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

Response: No. A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 1, 2007.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

by Our Correspondent, South Wales Echo

DO doctors, carers and families realise that in October 2007 resulting from the passing of the new Mental Capacity Act, that euthanasia will effectively become legalised in the UK?

Euthanasia

De Volkskrant leads with a report on euthanasia and palliative care, which states that palliative sedation is being used on patients too early. Palliative sedation is supposed to be applied to terminally ill patients who are expected to die naturally within two weeks. They are given medication which makes them sleep during the final phase of their lives.

DAILY MAIL (London)

May 15, 2007 Tuesday

YOU CAN'T CALL THIS MERCY KILLING -- IT'S LEGALISED MURDER IN ITS CRUELLEST FORM

By A. N. Wilson

WHEN October comes, euthanasia will have become legal in this country. If that comes as a shock to you, it came as a surprise to me too.

Only when reading the report in yesterday's Daily Mail did I realise that legislation -- at present passing through Parliament -- is precisely a licence for families to kill their sick relations by the slow death of thirst and starvation.

Astonishingly, this radical departure from the existing state of the law is being brought in under the 'negative resolution procedure'. This means that the measure will pass into law automatically, and without any debate whatsoever, unless an MP chooses to put a spanner in the works and demand such a debate.

Let us hope that there is at least one backbencher in the House of Commons who does bring this urgent matter to debate, so that, even if the deplorable new measure is eventually carried, it has at least been discussed before passing into statute.

LifeSiteNews.com

Tuesday November 21, 2006

Read the original here.

LONDON, November 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a statement yesterday Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor of England has warned doctors that they may face prison sentences if they refuse to starve and dehydrate patients to death. Criminal charges of assault could be laid against doctors or nurses who refuse to allow patients to die, even by removal of food and hydration tube.

LifeSiteNews.com

Tuesday November 21, 2006

Read the original here.

LONDON, November 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a statement yesterday Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor of England has warned doctors that they may face prison sentences if they refuse to starve and dehydrate patients to death. Criminal charges of assault could be laid against doctors or nurses who refuse to allow patients to die, even by removal of food and hydration tube.

Story from BBC NEWS

The 53-year-old, who has not been named, will be given zolpidem which early research has shown can bring people out of a vegetative state.

Her family do not want the test to go ahead, preferring to let her die, as she may be left seriously disabled.

But Sir Mark Potter, head of the High Court's family division, ruled against their wishes earlier this month.

From Herald Sun, 17 November 2006

A RIGHT to life group has attacked SBS for its plans to air a euthanasia documentary.

Do Not Resuscitate is a film about three Victorians with terminal or incurable illnesses who want to take their own lives.

But Right to Life Australia spokeswoman Margaret Tighe said SBS should not televise it.

"A Licence to Kill would be a more appropriate title for this film," Ms Tighe said. "I think this documentary is very dangerous and harmful and it will unfortunately encourage some people watching it to take steps to end their lifes."

A sixth attempt will be made to introduce voluntary euthanasia legislation in South Australia, with independent MP Bob Such finalising a bill to go before state parliament.

Mr Such revealed his move on Tuesday, promising tighter safeguards in a bid to secure support from both Liberal and Labor MPs.

His attempt will be the sixth to pass right-to-die legislation since the first bill was introduced in 1995.

Conference on the Bill for Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill

All Souls College, Oxford, 26th September 2006

A conference was recently held at All Souls College, Oxford, concerning Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. The areas of discussion are listed below, along with the protagonists in the debate (anti-Bill individuals are in italics).

Copyright 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
All Rights Reserved

Daily Mail (London)

THE ghastly prospect that, as a result of catastrophic illness, doctors might write you off as dead even though you are well aware of what is going on, but can't communicate that you are still alive, is the stuff of nightmares.

Such concern is often expressed about patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), but until now has been pooh-poohed by doctors as fanciful and alarmist.

Copyright 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
All Rights Reserved

Daily Mail (London)

Breakthrough intensifies ethical dilemma over switching off life support

A BRITISH woman left in a vegetative state after a road accident has astonished doctors by responding to their voices even though she appears unconscious.

Using brain scans, experts discovered the 23-year-old can imagine playing tennis when she is asked because the part of the brain linked to upper body movement goes into action.

Copyright 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

Original article available here.

A hospital doctor who admitted suffocating a severely disabled baby 34 years ago is being investigated by murder squad detectives.

The junior doctor wrote a magazine article in which she claimed to have placed a pillow over a newborn girl for 20 minutes at a hospital in north London.

The then senior house officer in paediatrics said that she had killed the baby, which was born without a brain, to spare the parents the trauma of having to watch the child die.

Copyright 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
DAILY MAIL (London)

NEW courts with the power to decide whether a hospital patient lives or dies will be allowed to sit in secret.

The decision by ministers means the first legal tribunal for more than 40 years with the right to take a life will hear cases behind closed doors if a judge thinks the proceedings should not be made public.

The rules apply to the Court of Protection, which will police the workings of 'living wills' and ' powers of attorney' introduced under Labour's controversial Mental Capacity Act.

LONDON (Reuters) - A terminally-ill patient has lost the last stage of a legal challenge for the right to receive nutrition and drink when he is close to death, his lawyers said on Tuesday.

Leslie Burke, 46, who has a degenerative brain condition, fears artificial nutrition could be stopped against his wishes when he cannot talk anymore.

A CORONER investigating the death of a woman allegedly starved and deprived of fluids in hospital has been asked to hold an inquest into the death of a patient on the same ward.

Relatives of Harold Speed believe that he died of dehydration, not pneumonia as his death certificate says. The 84-year-old former music teacher had been examined by the same doctor who treated Olive Nockels, who died after her drips were removed.

"The whole of my husband's stay in hospital was a nightmare," Kate Speed said.

Sir, It is not the right to die that is at issue (letter, June 29) as assisted suicide is illegal. What is disputed is whether anybody has the right to ask another person to kill them or assist in their suicide, and in particular whether the medical profession should be the agent of such deaths.

Reservations about the legalisation of euthanasia have some grounding in that there have been more than 200 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands where there was no prior request. To put it in lay terms, people were killed without any request or consent either at the time or prior to the event, something which might be characterised as murder.

To suggest that those who cannot “do the things that make life enjoyable” should have a right to ask the medical profession to kill them or procure their deaths seems to me to be an unwarranted extension of respect for autonomy. In any event, why is it always assumed that euthanasia or assisted dying must be in the remit of the medical profession?

DR ANDREW LAWSON
Honorary Senior Lecturer, Medical Ethics
Imperial College

Copyright 2006 Western Mail and Echo Ltd
All Rights Reserved
Western Mail

June 30, 2006, Friday
First Edition

Campaigners have urged doctors not to take the first steps on a slippery slope which could see patients killed instead of treated.

Doctors against physician- assisted suicide and euthanasia have warned that a change in the law could see 'the final solution' being used as the only treatment option for sick and vulnerable patients.

The BMA's annual meeting yesterday voted in favour of changing the organisation's policy to oppose a change in the law - reversing last year's vote, which had seen the BMA take a more neutral stance.

Andrew Davies, a senior house officer working in oncology in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, said, 'My big concern is that a right to treat will be become a right to die and patients will feel they will have a duty to unburden their families.'

Copyright 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
All Rights Reserved

DAILY MAIL (London)
June 30, 2006 Friday

By Jenny Hope

THE British Medical Association voted to oppose the legalisation of euthanasia yesterday after a revolt by its members.

Just a year after it was adopted, doctors overturned the controversial policy of a neutral approach to any change in the law.

The move followed claims by campaigners that the BMA was out of touch and isolated in the medical community.

Copyright 2006 Telegraph Group Limited
All Rights Reserved

The Daily Telegraph (LONDON)
June 30, 2006 Friday

Celia Hall Medical Editor

DOCTORS gave a clear message yesterday that they were opposed to all forms of assisted dying in a series of votes at the British Medical Association annual conference in Belfast.

The decision reversed the contentious BMA policy approved last year which had adopted a neutral position.

Original article available here.

For more information:
Stephen Drake,
708-209-1500, ext. 29

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 22, 2006 -- Today, sad and alarming news emerged from Tazewell County. The Peoria Journal-Star reported that Kellie Waremburg has been charged with the attempted murder of her daughter, who is four years old and has cerebral palsy. The police have released no details and have acted responsibly in limiting their comments to the press at this time.

We sincerely hope this allegation turns out to be untrue. And we are all hoping that the young girl pulls through this medical crisis.

But if it is true, it's time to demand that the media and parent "advocates" behave with more restraint and responsibility than they have in the coverage of the alleged murder of 3-year-old Katie McCarron by her mother.

Copyright 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Daily Mail (London)

MELANIE PHILLIPS

ONE OF the arguments against permitting mercy killing has always been the slippery slope scenario.

The fear is that if doctors were allowed to end people's lives at their request, we would quickly slide towards ending people's lives without their consent, a fearsome prospect for a civilised society.

Who could have foreseen that one of our most distinguished experts in medical ethics would himself not so much slide down that slippery slope but leap to the bottom in one go.

Len Doyal, formerly a professor of medical ethics and a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee, actually called yesterday for doctors to be able actively to end patients' lives without their consent.

© Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Original here.

AT LAST A HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL in Europe got up the nerve to chastise the Dutch government for preparing to legalize infant euthanasia. Italy's Parliamentary Affairs minister, Carlo Giovanardi, said during a radio debate: "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."