Deadly tricks

The true story of how British doctors have been manipulated into giving their support to euthanasia.

In an historic decision, the British Medical Association voted on June 30 to drop its long-standing opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia. Delegates at the annual representative conference agreed that “the BMA should not oppose legislation which alters the criminal law but should press for robust safeguards both for patients and for doctors who do not wish to be involved in such procedures”.

This vote is sure to have far-reaching consequences. First, it will boost the chances of a hotly-debated private bill introduced in the British Parliament by Lord Joffe last year to legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Britain has a strong euthanasia lobby and the public is easily bamboozled by the complex debate. Lack of opposition will quickly be interpreted as support by entire medical profession, especially since about 80 per cent of British doctors are members of the BMA.

Second, it will strengthen the hand of euthanasia supporters in other Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand. At the present time, legalised euthanasia or assisted suicide is confined to the Netherlands, Belgium, the American state of Oregon and Switzerland. If the United Kingdom joins their ranks, it could quickly spread to other countries in Western Europe and other states in the US.

With so much at stake, more ought to be known about the shabby and undemocratic route to the BMA’s decision. The true story is that hundreds of delegates were not clamouring to help ease the wretched and dying out of their pain. In a shameless display of political chicanery, supporters of euthanasia manipulated the meeting into adopting a position which was clearly opposed to the wishes of the majority. Bolshevik apparatchiks could not have been more adroit -- or more cynical.

Here’s what really happened, according to doctors who attended the meeting.  

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are hot topics in Britain. On Tuesday, June 28, the second day of the four-day conference, an open debate was held. Based on the proceedings a consensus was to be drafted and motions were be put to a vote two days later, on Thursday. Several delegates gave brief speeches in a half-hour debate. Most of these strongly opposed euthanasia. One of them pointed out that a few months before the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners had adopted a neutral position, only to provoke a storm of opposition amongst its members. And a few days before the BMA’s meeting, the RCGP was forced to reinstate its policy of opposition.

Curiously, the chair allowed a non-delegate to address the meeting, Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who once worked as a hospital doctor. He was the most polished and convincing of the speakers -- and he used the floor to argue strongly in favour of legalising euthanasia.

Nonetheless, delegates who attended the debate felt that sentiment amongst the members was running two to one against euthanasia. An earlier motion which would have allowed assisted suicide in exceptional circumstances failed by 58 per cent to 42 per cent. It seemed clear that the official position of the BMA was not about to change.

However, the vote took place in the closing minutes of the four-day conference. Only 174 of the 449 delegates actually voted because many had already departed. The motion which was presented to this rump was a curious one. Instead of deciding simply whether or not the prevailing policy should be changed, three confusing options were presented: the status quo, firm opposition, withdrawal of opposition and support for euthanasia. It was up to the chair, a supporter of euthanasia, to decide the order these options should be presented to the meeting.

Very cleverly, the chair chose support for euthanasia first. It lost by 101 to 73. Then withdrawal of opposition was put to the meeting. It carried by 92 to 82. Whether the BMA should maintain its long-standing opposition was never even put to a vote at all. The votes of 19 swinging voters out of 449 changed the course of medical history in Britain.

Although journalists failed to notice this Machiavellian manipulation, several doctors soon wrote to the British Medical Journal to express their disgust. “The BMA has betrayed some of the most vulnerable members in our society,” wrote a psychiatrist, Dr Adrian Treloar. “That it did so by delaying a vote till days after the debate is quite beyond belief. Have we forgotten that duty of care, compassion and the right of each and every patient whom we serve is to be valued and to have their life respected?”

And Dr Michael Jarmulowicz, a histopathologist, commented that “on such an important moral issue which underpins the practice of medicine, the medical profession deserves a proper referendum type of vote of all its membership, rather than a change of policy by dubious procedural tactics.”

Supporters of euthanasia often argue that the public wants it and doctors want it. If this is true, why do they have to stoop to the grubby dodges of shady trade unions to get what they want? Honesty and transparency are supposed to be the hallmarks of legalised euthanasia. They were not apparent at the BMA’s vote. It is a chilling start to a well-organised campaign to make assisted suicide and euthanasia the law of the land.

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet.