Dr Burnt Out takes issue with the BMA’s ‘assistance’ in preparing the Assisted Dying Bill.
As I am sure a lot of you did, I watched with interest the events unfold regarding Kim Leadbeater’s bill on physician-assisted dying last Friday which passed, and for all intents and purposes set in motion a chain of events which will almost undoubtedly lead to it coming into law at some stage over the next few years. I am hugely wary of such a change which overturns centuries of moral tradition, however the arguments for and against are well rehearsed and will undoubtedly be argued and debated again and again over the next couple of years.
So momentous is this change, that this is what Keir Starmer and the Labour government will be remembered for: as David Cameron is remembered for same-sex marriage legislation, the Starmer government will be remembered for this bill, such are the profound impact and implications it will have to our society,
I was not surprised or shocked the way the vote went: this was clearly the trajectory that the MPs and government were on, and to be honest it would have been more of a surprise if the bill had been defeated.
I was however surprised and shocked by an email from the BMA that I received later on Friday afternoon.
I will quote directly from the email. It is important in remembering in reading this quote from the email that the BMA’s stance to PAD is described as ‘neutral’. The email reads as follows:
‘Today the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has passed its second reading in the House of Commons. Ahead of its publication, the BMA had constructive meetings with the bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP, and we are glad to see many of the points we raised with her reflected in the bill. You can read our full briefing which we issued to all MPs ahead of today’s debate.’
Now, I do not know what that sounds like to you, but to my ears it reads that the BMA – with its medical expertise in these complex areas – helped Kim Leadbeater in writing her bill. The BMA has effectively aided and abetted, and – – according to the document sent to MPs – it seems even ‘proof-read’ the PAD bill that was presented to MPs on Friday.
It has stated this clearly in the email that it sent to its members.
Let us now look at definitions:
‘Not supporting or helping either side in a disagreement, competition etc‘
Above is the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of the word neutral.
Imagine two countries (E and S) with differing laws, and disagree about these laws who have a mutual border with a country (W) that is ‘neutral’ about these disagreements. One of the countries (S) wishes to change the law in the other (E) and the two countries disagree about this.
The neutral country (W) however produces detailed specific and detailed guidance, plans, and advice to the country (S) in how to enact this law change in country E.
I think most people would say that country W has not been neutral as defined in the dictionary: they have supported and helped a particular side in an argument.
True neutrality means staying completely silent, or certainly not have the impression of taking sides, or give assistance to one side of a debate, until the law has been changed. Obviously once a law has been changed, professional bodies will have to accept and help comply with any law as it stands.
This where the BMA has been wrong in what they have done.
The RCGP Council this weekend has also just – quite correctly – decided to consult with the RCGP membership as to what its position on assisted dying should be.
The outcome of any membership consultation may well be that the RCGP position changes from being against assisted dying, to a neutral position. But let us hope that the RCGP understands the meaning of neutrality because when we look back on this moment as a medical profession in years to come, it will become more and more apparent regarding the BMA, that despite claiming neutrality, it has been far from neutral in one of the most important and divisive debates in the modern era.
I don’t actually care what the RCGP stance is. The BMA has it right and despite their weakness represent all doctors. The RCGP is a pointless college with no credibility that most GPs are not even a member off. No one I know is silly enough to continue paying them to nor represent the on the ground coal facing GPs. How daft that this government cares to speak to them. Talk to the loving GP. Not the ivory towers. I guess that is unlikely as they have already appointed a robot surgeon with zero on the ground experience to fix primary care.
Working GP not Loving GP. Though….
You are, of course, absolutely correct. Any pretence of being ‘neutral’ is a sham, and the relevant parties in the BMA clearly supported a change in law. Their claim to neutrality was a foil to appease the medical profession while they brought to bear a law change which will have enormous downstream implications and risks to many vulnerable groups. But we all know that much of the BMA exists to serve their own purposes, and the leaders seem to believe they are above reproach or challenge. It’s a troubling time to be a U.K. doctor, and may be just about to get significantly more so.
This article seems a bit odd to me.
It is normal and desirable for the BMA to be consulted on proposed legislation that impacts doctors. To consider that doing so constitutes taking sides in a dispute would render the BMA unable to offer an opinion on any legislative matter.
However given the high emotions around this issue, the BMA would be wise to make public the exact details of any recommendation they gave.