How the British Medical Association (BMA) association opposes the legislation of Euthanasia or physician-assisted Suicide regarding such measures in the fundamental roles of doctors

The British Medical Association opposes the legislation of Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide regarding such measures as in the fundamental role of doctors.

However, the same Organisation regards the concepts ‘Good death’ as a vital part of health care.

Medical Law

Introduction:

In my research paper, I will be discussing the question: How the British Medical Association (BMA) association opposes the legislation of Euthanasia or physician-assisted Suicide regarding such measures in the fundamental roles of doctors. However, the same Organisation regards the concept of ‘good health’ as a vital part of health care. Besides, I will be exploring the different aspects of Euthanasia and examining how it impacts the Medical association.

Euthanasia is considered one of the most morally reprehensible crimes a person can commit. Legally, requests for the premature ending of life have contributed to the debate concerning the role of such practices in contemporary health care.

According to DR Morrison [2] The British Medical Association policy should oppose physician-assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. He said the arguments for and against a change in Law on assisted suicide were complex and challenging and that there was a range of views within the medical profession and into the broader society.

[3]The word euthanasia originated in Greece means good death. Euthanasia encompasses various dimensions from:

• Active: Introducing something to cause death.
• Passive: Withholding Treatment or supportive measures
• Voluntary: Consent
• Involuntary: Consent from guardian
• Physician-Assisted: Where physicians prescribe the medicine and patient, or the third party administers the medication to cause death.

According to Ganzini[4], the requests for the premature ending of life have contributed to the debate about the role such as practices in contemporary health care. The debate cuts across complex and dynamic aspects such as legal, ethical, human rights, health, religion, economic, spiritual, social, and cultural aspects of civilized rights.

Emmanuel Kant’s[5] the idea that only those ethical principles that could be accepted as a universal rule should be accepted. The idea of giving everyone a ‘good death’ through Euthanasia is the only way it will be accepted universally and morally. It is a controversial issue that questions how morally obligated and invested in society should be with death.

Euthanasia is a controversial topic within European countries; for instance, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherland have legalized the Act of euthanasia/Physician-assisted Suicide, whereas, In the United Kingdom, Euthanasia remains illegal. The word Euthanasia derives the Greek words ‘eu and Thonatos’ meaning ‘well death’ furthermore the oxford dictionary[6], and translates Euthanasia as an Unlawful act under the English Law which involves withdrawing life from a patient suffering from an incurable disease without inflicting any pain on the patient even though modern medicine has to help improve the lives of those living with a terminal illness, not all patient wishes to carry on treatment while diagnosed with a  long term illness moving on the restriction of euthanasia/Physician-assisted suicide enforces patient to travel abroad to countries that authorize the cat as there is no statutory definition of death in the United Kingdom. Even though modern medicine has helped to improve the lives of those living with terminal illnesses, not all patients’ wishes have been met (Chahal, 2009).

As part of my research, the case of Airedale NHS Trust V Bland[7]Shows that it was used to interpret the definition of death of a patient. Bland was involved in a Hillsborough disaster, and in a persistent state, he left the patient to live on a life support machine even though his brain system was still helping his body function through the time-lapse. On forward, the court granted the declaration to terminate the patient life by granting the doctor permission to take off life support. The case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland also shows how assisted Suicide and Euthanasia can be authorized under legal Terms and critical medical conditions.

Active Euthanasia is carried out by the request of consent to terminate their life. This Act is fulfilled by a medical practitioner administering a lethal dose of drugs. A doctor or nurse can be charged with criminal liability under the Regulation for their assistance on the termination of patient life. On the other hand, passive Euthanasia involves the termination of the cause of nature by doctors instead of intervention. The doctors allow the patient to have a natural death; however, professionals still offer support to the patient.

Voluntary Euthanasia is when a patient is determined to end their life. Still, a full consent must be given by the patient; also the patient must demonstrate that they understand the decision they are making before the cat can be carried out by a medical profession. However, involuntary is when another person decides on behalf of the patient based on their best interest.

In [8]July 1830 Charles Hasting was a doctor in Worcester, he founded the British Medical Association. Hasting’s approach aimed to help doctors share scientific forums and information as medical practitioners at the time,  who did not have a lot of knowledge on antibiotics and anesthetics. Three years later, the association redirected their focus from Provisional and medical-surgical and started adopting new roles. [9]This helped the development of the association, and in 1858 the BMA formed the general medical council, also known as GMC (General Medical Council) and the Medical Register.

The General Medical Council’s main riles involves advocating and preserving the welfare of the public. The GMC submits to these responsibilities through controlling the medical register, enrolling doctors, and medical practitioners into the register. [10]The GMC has the authority to suspend or remove any medical practitioners from the medical register. If they fail to meet the simple code of medical practice, for example, its emphasis on the failure of obtaining a standard code of practice and principles would be the perfect example of the shipman.

[11]Medical ethics examines the moral principles and issues surrounding the clinical case and assists with the professional relationship between doctors and individuals. Besides, medical ethics allows scholars to explore the appropriate legal response to the occurring ethical dilemmas surrounding medical Law and ethical implications. The Medical Ethics and pillars to take into consideration includes.

[12]Autonomy focuses on an individual’s right to be respected when it comes to decision making regarding their health and human fate. The right Health care choice is very important; however, there is an extent level of fear expressed in the possibility that individuals could make a mistake while attempting to make the correct decision, the individual needs to be competent and seek support from family or friends.

[13]Non-maleficence restricts doctors from inflicting harm to patients; instead, non-maleficence enforces doctors/ nurses to promote good deed instead. Beneficence is another ethical Pillar that is important on how the Act seeks help promote the well-being of an individual, which means that a doctor has to act on the patient’s best interest; however, there is a limited authorization power given the medical practitioners.

Mental capacity

[14]As for Euthanasia, the BMA is against the ideology of legalizing the Act, and they argue that Euthanasia goes against the BMA policies. These policies restrict doctors and medical students from practicing. Others might argue that the BMA follows directives that have been implicated by the European Union in terms of Human Rights 1998 under article 2 which states that everyone has a right to life. Besides, the BMA believes in providing the best standard to care for patients and does not try to force doctors to practice.

Purdy v DPP

[15], Eagle (2008). Debbie Purdy and her significant other, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, acknowledged that having the option to travel to another country to end their suffering by helping suicide was an issue that ‘many would view as something that the law should allow’. However this would require an adjustment in the Law by Parliament. The administration has clarified its goal to refresh the Suicide Act when Parliamentary time permits, 19 and Lord Joffe plans to again bring before Parliament another Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill.

[16]In Purdy (2008), Section 2(1) of the 1961 Act prohibits the assistance which Mr. Conway desired. By section 1 of the 1961 Act, Parliament abolished the Rule of Law under which it was a crime for a person to commit suicide. However, the parliament decided to maintain the criminal prohibition of acts capable of providing encouragement or assistance for a person to commit suicide. It did so by enacting section 2(1) of the 1961 Act. Section 2(1) is amended by section 59(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. A person commits an offense if the person does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and if the person’s Act is intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.” Mr. Conway was a 68-year-old man who in November 2014, was diagnosed with a form of motor neuron disease (“MND”)[17]

UK law as applied under the Suicide Act 1961, currently thoughtful to instances of helped suicide. The individual has ventured out abroad to a nation where it is legitimate to take their life, in that individuals helping them and along these lines submitting an offense have not been indicted. [18]Kant’s (1993) claim is that suicide indicates a maxim. To his conclusion, he believed in self‐love and the principle to shorten life when its continued duration threatens more evil than promises satisfaction. According (Kant,2003) to which he forbade all suicides, all assisted Suicide and all Euthanasia, which is not tenable. In rejecting it, the Law in the UK do not even have to step outside of Kant’s Idea, they just have to adapt to a few ideas and make new Laws (Kant, 2003).

Public health ethics rests upon a set of general moral considerations (GMCs) that have been widely discussed in the literature, for example, avoiding, preventing, and removing harms.

[19]The Arguments are in favor of Euthanasia According to Lancett (2011), the argument is that (1) People ought to reserve the option to have the option to choose when and how beyond words (assurance). (2) Wilful extermination empowers an individual to bite the dust with poise and in charge of their circumstance. (3) Passing is a private issue, and the state ought not to meddle with the person’s entitlement to kick the bucket. (3) It is costly to keep individuals alive when there is no solution to their ailment. (4)  Wilful extermination would discharge valuable assets to treat individuals who could live. (5) Loved ones would be saved the torment of seeing their cherished one endure an arduous passing. (6) Society licenses creatures to be put down as a demonstration of thoughtfulness when enduring; a similar treatment ought to be accessible to people.

[20]The Arguments against Euthanasia include According Lancett, 2011) (1) Some non-strict contentions against wilful extermination include: (2) willful extermination would debilitate society’s regard for the worth and significance of human life (3) legitimate palliative consideration is accessible which decreases or expels the requirement for individuals to be in torment (4) it would prompt more regrettable consideration for the critically ill (5) it would place an excessive amount of intensity in the hands of specialists, and harm the trust among patient and specialist (6) A few people may feel forced to demand wilful extermination by family, companions or specialists when it isn’t what they truly need. (7) it would undermine the responsibility of specialists and attendants to spare lives. It would demoralize the quest for new fixes and medications for the critically ill. (8)a few people out of the blue recoup (9) a few people may alter their perspective on wilful extermination and be not able to tell anybody (10) deliberate, wilful extermination could be the initial step on an elusive slant that prompts automatic obstinate extermination, where the individuals who are unfortunate or seen as an issue could be slaughtered.[21]

[22]BSA, 2010; THE LANCET, 2010; ‘DEMOS’, 2011

Conclusion:

In my sentiment, Euthanasia ought to never be sanctioned because individuals will be treated as unimportant methods. Each one of the individuals who pose a risk to their family members will be put to death and this pays little heed to the reality on the off chance that they need it or not. Human life will be in question. As I would like to think, an individual ought to be permitted an honorable passing. Any person has the privilege to kick the bucket with respect and has the option to request that the clinical workforce end his life when the main other game-plan is to draw out the enduring of the person. While I do concur that clinical faculty have made a vow to ensure life, delaying the enduring of an individual who gets no opportunity to live is ethically off-base too. Killing ought to be made legitimate, yet firmly checked and all-around directed.

Bibliography

• Eagle, M. Suicide Act. Hansard Ministerial Statements. House of Commons, 2008.
• Ganzini, L, Fenn, DS, Le, MA, Heintz, RT, Bloom, JD. 1996. Attitudes of Oregon psychiatrists toward physician-assisted suicide. Am J Psychiatry; 153: 1469–75
• Ian Dowbiggin, A merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America (1st ed, Oxford University Press 2003) 265
• Immanuel Kant, Critique of pure reason. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
• Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the metaphysics of morals; Indianapolis: (1st ed, Hackett, 1993) 422
• Keown, J. (2018). Conclusion. In Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalisation (Cambridge Bioethics and Law, pp. 458-472). Cambridge: Cambridge University doi:10.1017/9781107337909.029
• L Lancett, ‘Arguments in favor of and against euthanasia’ (Bitesize, 03/03/2011) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zynv87h/revision/3> accessed 18/03/2020
• Nugent, H. Lord Joffe to resurrect Bill to clarify Law. Times Online, 30 October 2008 (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5042490.ece). Google Scholar
• Purdy R (on the application of) v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2008] EWHC 2565 (QB) 29 October 2008.
• R Conway, ‘Sir Terence Etherton MR, Sir Brian Leveson P and Lady Justice King: Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ‘ [2018] Section 1(SSJ) THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION and LADY JUSTICE KING:THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE 2-3
• Saimo Chahal, ‘Human rights: clarifying assisted suicide’ (The Law Society Gazette, 20 August 2009) <https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/human-rights-clarifying-the-law-on-assisted-suicide/52048.article> accessed 18/03/2020
• Singh K. Correlates of attitudes toward Euthanasia. Soc Biol. 1979; 26:247–254.
• org.uk. 2019. BMA – Home. [online] Available at: <https://www.bma.org.uk/> [Accessed 19 March 2020].

[2] BMA – Home, 2019

[3]Ian Dowbiggin, 1st ed, Oxford University Press 2003, pg. 265

[4] Ganzini, L, Fenn, DS, Le, MA, Heintz, RT, Bloom, JD

[5] Immanuel Kant, Critique of pure reason. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

[6] Ian Dowbiggin, 1st ed, Oxford University Press 2003 pg. 26

[7] Eagle, M. Suicide Act. Hansard Ministerial Statements. House of Commons, 2008

[8] R Conway, ‘Sir Terence Etherton MR, Sir Brian Leveson P, and Lady Justice King: Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ‘ [2018] Section 1(SSJ)

[9] (BMA – Home, 2019)

[10] Singh K. Correlates of attitudes toward Euthanasia. Soc Biol. 1979; 26:247–254

[11] Cambridge Bioethics and Law, pp. 458-472. Cambridge: Cambridge University

[12] Cambridge Bioethics and Law, pp. 458-472). Cambridge: Cambridge University

[13] Cambridge Bioethics and Law, pp. 458-472). Cambridge: Cambridge University

[14] BMA – Home, 2019

[15]Eagle, M. Suicide Act. Hansard Ministerial Statements. House of Commons, 2008

[16] Purdy R (on the application of) v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2008]

[17] R Conway, ‘Sir Terence Etherton MR, Sir Brian Leveson P and Lady Justice King: Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ‘ [2018] Section 1(SSJ)

[18] Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the metaphysics of morals; Indianapolis: (1st ed, Hackett, 1993) 422

[19] L Lancett, ‘Arguments in favor of and against euthanasia’ Bitesize, 03/03/2011.

[20] L Lancett, ‘Arguments in favor of and against euthanasia’ Bitesize, 03/03/2011.

[21] L Lancett, ‘Arguments in favor of and against euthanasia’ (Bitesize, 03/03/2011)

[22] BSA, 2010; THE LANCET, 2010; ‘DEMOS’, 2011