Neutrality risks

As A former member of the British Medical Association (BMA), I was saddened to read (your report, 14 June) that the BMJ has carried an editorial by its editor-in-chief calling on the BMA to take a neutral stance on the legalisation of assisted suicide.

A poll, quoted as showing that 62 per cent of GPs supported neutrality, was commissioned by the pressure group Dignity in Dying and was of 1,000 GPs.

It is not clear how they were selected and what question was asked.

However, polls have shown that 65 per cent of doctors oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide, and major medical royal colleges also oppose it.

I question the quoted statement that a change in the law is “almost inevitable” because of “the societal move to individual autonomy and patient choice”.

Individual autonomy has to be limited by moral boundaries and by the knowledge that the decisions of an individual affect others. Patient choice must be based on accurate information and trust that the medical practitioner is a protector, not a destroyer, of life.

Death is indeed “one of life’s central events”, but the best way to reduce people’s fear of the dying process is not to legalise assisted suicide, with all its attendant dangers, but to spread the knowledge of and increase the availability of good palliative care.

It is fear of the unknown, fed by publicity of the undoubtedly far too common agonising deaths in weakness and indignity, which cause many people to think that so-called “assisted dying” might be a good thing.

I believe changing the law would lead to a less compassionate society and would further erode respect for life and trust in the medical profession.

(Rev Dr) Donald M MacDonald

Craiglockhart Grove

Edinburgh