SPUC were responding to this morning's High Court decision granting
a full judicial review hearing to Mrs. Diane Pretty, who is seeking
legal approval for assisted suicide. A coalition of concerned parties1 are seeking to intervene in the case.
Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, said: "We are disappointed and
greatly concerned about today's decision. Although we always have
compassion for suffering patients like Mrs Pretty, establishing a
"right to die" would undermine the fundamental right to life, by
creating categories of people whose lives are deemed not worth living.
It would lead to elderly patients being made to feel that they should
exercise this right and stop being a burden on the health system. Just
because a patient's exterior dignity is affected by illness and
dependency on others does not mean that their intrinsic value as a
human being is abolished. Society should value all patients by giving
them the full and equal protection of the law."
Dr Michael Howitt-Wilson of ALERT (Against Legalised
Euthanasia--Research and Teaching) commented: "Patient dignity is not
recognised by telling vulnerable patients how undignified their
condition is, or how they would be better off dead. So-called mercy
killing is in fact rejection, rather than compassion, for the patient.
Assisted suicide is a misguided attempt at dealing with the suffering
of patients, whose needs can be met instead by good palliative and
hospice care. We cannot allow a distorted notion of compassion to place
millions of patients in danger of potentially fatal neglect.".
Dr Greg Gardner of the Medical Ethics Alliance commented: "The
idea of a "right to die" is contrary to the whole basis of medical
ethics. If an alleged "right to die" became a precedent, medical
resources could be denied to frail, vulnerable patients on the basis
that they can opt to die. Trust in doctors would be further eroded.
Elderly patients in Holland are becoming frightened of doctors, because
a large number of deaths in that country involve active intervention to
hasten death with or without the patient's consent. If conscious
patients are given the right to be killed, there is nothing to stop
this from being applied to unconscious patients. These cases are not so
much about the 'right' of one person to be killed but of the many not
to be."