RIGHT TO DIE FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL BIL

By Jeremy Purvis
Contact the author via the editor by e-mail at christopher.johnstone@ntlworld.com

Jeremy Purvis Debating the end of life raises a wide range of complex and sensitive issues, and challenges some people's most deeply held moral views. The recent case of 'Mrs Z', a woman who wanted to travel to Switzerland to receive help to die, and the threat of legal action against her husband if he organised the journey, illustrates that debating the issue raises questions of medical ethics and personal choice. It also challenges the role of the law.

In Scotland, the law permits suicide and allows competent adults to refuse life-sustaining treatment. It also permits doctors to withhold and withdraw life-prolonging treatment that is considered 'futile' from patients who cannot express an opinion (for example those in a permanent vegetative state). However, terminally ill patients who are not physically able to commit suicide, and are not in a position to end their lives by refusing treatment, are not entitled to ask for help to die. Arguably, this situation is discriminatory as well as logically inconsistent.

A further paradox is that these legal procedures are regulated only by guidelines and common law. There are no statutory safeguards to prevent abuse or ensure the law is always applied appropriately. As such I am proposing a Bill to change the law and give terminally ill patients the right to ask for medical assistance to die: physician assisted suicide.

My proposal largely mirrors the law in Oregon and would allow for a terminally ill patient to request medical assistance to die if they are: an adult, a resident of Scotland, 'capable', and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will result in death within 6 months. Those who met these requirements could receive a prescription from a doctor if they met with the following criteria:

Firstly the patient must make two verbal requests to their doctor separated by a period of time;

Second, the patient must provide a written request to their doctor;

Third, the doctor and another independent doctor must confirm the diagnosis and prognosis, and determine whether the patient is 'capable' (in accordance with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000;

Lastly the doctor must inform the patient of feasible alternatives. It must be stressed that doctors and the patient's health care authority will not be compelled to participate in the Act if my proposal is passed.

I must stress that I have great admiration for all of those who offer support and provide compassion and understanding at the most difficult times of patients’ lives, whether they are consultants, nurses, doctors, support staff, carers or others.

Currently a consultation has been released that covers these issues raised. The paper has a number of questions included, on which I am asking for specific comment. The consultation paper is available in word and PDF format from my website www.jeremypurvis.org or on the Scottish Parliament website and responses should be returned by the 15th of April 2005. I look forward to hearing from you.

Jeremy Purvis is the member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale in the Scottish Parliament. The consultation document can also be found by following the link: www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/membersBills.htm. Responses, which should be submitted by 15 April 2005, may be sent to: Jeremy Purvis MSP The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP. Responses can be submitted electronically to: megan.dee@scottish.parliament.uk.

hoolet is the magazine of RCGP Scotland. It is supported intellectually, financially and emotionally by RCGP Scotland.

This issue maintained by Robert Hallam.