Majority of British GP's"Stop Treating Terminally Ill" — Survey

UK, 21 May 07 -- More than half of GP's have withheld treatment from terminally ill patients knowing it could hasten death, a survey published yesterday suggested.

The study of more than 300 family doctors, by Pulse magazine, found that 54 per cent had held back drugs such as antibiotics. Almost four out of five - 79 per cent - believe there are circumstances when such action is justified.

Thirty per cent of those surveyed thought physician-assisted suicide should be legalised and 42 per cent would be prepared to help a patient die if the law was changed.

Almost three in five of GP's questioned, 58 per cent, had given pain relief drugs which might hasten death, even if that was not the intended consequence. Three quarters said this could be justified.

Deborah Annetts, the chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "This survey shows what we have long said - that doctors hold a range of views on assisted dying and that many support a change in the law.

"It shows that GP's are in touch with the views of the vast majority of their patients - 80 per cent of the public believe that a terminally ill person should have the option of an assisted death.

"Given the range of views held by doctors on this issue, it is a shame the organisations that are supposed to represent them are failing to do so, and on an issue of such great importance to the public."

In the past 18 months, the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges of Physicians and of GP's have all changed their position on euthanasia from neutrality to opposition.

A spokesman for the BMA said: "This is a very sensitive issue and doctors have varying views on it. Our position is we are opposed to physician-assisted suicide. At the moment, the majority of doctors are opposed.

"There is a very clear moral and legal distinction between knowing that a treatment may cause harm and deliberately intending to kill a patient.

"If a doctor's intention is to relieve pain and distress they will not have broken the law."

The results suggested that younger GP's were more supportive of assisted suicide than colleagues over 65, although the number of older doctors surveyed was small.

Dr Peter Jolliffe, the chief executive of Devon local medical committee, which represents GP's and GP practices, said: "My personal view would be there are times in life where suicide is a perfectly logical, sensible and understandable thing to do.

"If society is going to go down that route I don't see that it would have to be a doctor who administered the pill or gave the injection - I would find it difficult to do so."

Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of the Care Not Killing Alliance, said: "It is quite appropriate to withhold treatment such as antibiotics when death is imminent and inevitable and when the burden of giving them outweighs any benefit.

"There is a huge difference between withholding treatment with the intention of hastening death, which is unethical, and withholding treatment in the knowledge that death may be hastened.

"The Pulse survey reflects the fact that many GP's mistakenly believe that you can't kill the pain without killing the patient. Morphine, properly used, does not hasten death."

By Nic Fleming, Telegraph

DWDV Comment - The Thought Police

"There is a huge difference between withholding treatment with the intention of hastening death, which is unethical, and withholding treatment in the knowledge that death may be hastened."

Dr Peter Saunders, Care Not Killing Alliance.

Actually, there is no discernable difference in practice. Given what the doctor actually does (or does not do) regardless of whatever may be secretly going through his or her mind, the patient will die in the same way in the same timeframe, given that the doctor evidences the same actual behavioural steps. Attempting to police thought ("intention") makes no practical difference at all--but policing behaviour does.

Except for the doctor's secret thoughts, there is no difference in patient experience or outcomes between these two scenarios.

It's the patient's thoughts that matter

The key problem with the claim is that the focus of the objection is on the doctor's intentions. But what really matters is the patient's intentions. It is the patient's life, not the doctor's. Any decision to die with medical assistance must be the spontaneous, documented, tested and enduring request of the patient.