This reaffirmed that euthanasia and assisted suicide are not permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or any previous decision.

The document states that:

"There is a general consensus, based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) on the right to privacy, that there can be no intervention affecting a person without his or her consent. From this human right flow the principles of personal autonomy and the principle of consent. These principles hold that a capable adult patient must not be manipulated, and that his or her will, when clearly expressed, must prevail even if it signifies refusal of treatment: no-one can be compelled to undergo a medical treatment against his or her will."

The Oviedo Convention (ETS No. 164), on human rights and biomedicine legally binds the majority of member states to uphold this, and also states that  patients now incapable must have their previously expressed wishes "taken into account".

The PACE statement robustly continues:

"5. This resolution is not intended to deal with the issues of euthanasia or assisted suicide. Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited. This resolution thus limits itself to the question of advance directives, living wills and continuing powers of attorney."

PACE however recommends to national parliaments that  "advance directives, living wills and/or continuing powers of attorney"  in writing, and with supervision to prevent abuses, should be promoted  and "fully taken into account". This is not without dangers, although 7.4. usefully states that  "prior instructions contained in advance directives and/or living wills which are against the law, or good practice, or those which do not correspond to the actual situation that the interested party anticipated at the time of signing the document, should not be applied".

7.8. states that:

"surrogate decisions that rely on general value judgements present in society should not be admissible and, in case of doubt, the decision must always be pro-life and the prolongation of life."

Healthy people often think they would wish to be allowed to die if incapacitated, but experience shows that when this happens the overwhelming majority feel otherwise. Sections 7.4 and 7.8 should be a good defence for a doctor who knows it would be bad practice both professionally and ethically not to give life-saving treatment to such a patient.

The statement was hailed by European pro-life activists as a win against "a real ideological tyranny of culture of death".

Research published this week in the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggests that Canadians from Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino and Korean backgrounds are deliberately aborting their daughters due to a preference for male children. 

Skewed sex ratios have also been found amongst Indian communities in the UK, as highlighted in a 2007 study by  S Dubuc and D Coleman.

The ProLife Alliance is shocked that women living in Canada and the UK, and no doubt other countries are still at the mercy of ancient customs which run completely counter to equality of opportunity, to the point where they are even expected to kill their own children. 

The objectivity of the so-called “independent commission on assisted dying” was always in doubt. On November 30th 2011 it was revealed that nine of the twelve Falconer commissioners were well-known names in the movement to legalise assisted suicide . The Commission was the brainchild of the campaign group 'Dignity in Dying' (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and was funded by their patron, the novelist Terry Pratchett.  As Dr Peter Saunders, director of the Care Not Killing Alliance (CNK), of which we are a member said, this was a case of “cash for conclusions”.

Falconer tasked his Commission to do the following:

• Investigate the circumstances under which it should be possible for people to be assisted to die
• Recommend what system, if any, should exist to allow people to be assisted to die
• Identify who should be entitled to be assisted to die
• Determine what safeguards should be put in place to ensure that vulnerable people are neither abused nor pressured to choose an assisted death
• Recommend what changes in the law, if any, should be introduced

Read the full report here. 

The commissioners consisted of Lord Falconer, the Chairman, who has a history of campaigning on this issue.  He submitted an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill which attempted to legalise assisted suicide.  The bill was voted on in the Lords on 7 July 2009 but did not pass. The other three parliamentarians selected were all known supporters of assisted dying.  Baroness Elaine Murphy of Aldgate voted for Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying Bill in 2006, Baroness Young of Old Scone  voted for Falconer’s 2009 amendment, and Penny Mordaunt MP  is  the Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Choice at the End of Life, for which Dignity in Dying provides secretarial support.

The medics on the panel were Professor Sam Ahmedzai, Professor of Palliative Medicine in Sheffield, Dr Carole Dacombe, Medical Director, St Peter’s Hospice, and Sir Graeme Catto, former President of the General Medical Council, all known to be supporters of assisted dying.  It is notable that  the BMA refused to submit a view to the Commission on the grounds that it was not independent and impartial. Dr Stephen Duckworth represented disabled people as the founder and former Chief Executive of Disability Matters Limited.  However, this is not a membership organisation and he is in fact self-styled as a “disability consultant”.

Lord Ian Blair of Boughton, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was known by CNK to be in favour of assisted dying. Writing about it later in the Independent he appears to be  influenced by how difficult it is to prosecute family members in hard cases, without realising that the law is there to protect the most vulnerable.

There were only two members of the final Commission whose views on assisted suicide were not already clear to the public, Dame Denise Platt, Member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life  and the Revd. Canon Dr James Woodward, Anglican Priest and Canon of St George’s Chapel, Windsor. The latter has subsequently called assisted dying “unwise” and was described in the Church Times as the “sole dissenting voice on the Commission”. 

Opposition to the Commission from the Beginning

Of those who were initially asked to submit views to the Commission, 46 individuals and 40 organisations [click to view full list] (plus the 40 members of the Care Not Killing Alliance) refused to take part. For many of these, the reason was that this Commission was clearly biased, lacking in transparency, and at best simply re-consulting on an issue that a House of Lords select committee had already delved into in greater depth than this committee was intending to do, through a 2005 official parliamentary inquiry. This covered some 246 Hansard columns and two volumes of 744 pages and 116 pages respectively, 15 oral sessions, 48 groups or individuals giving evidence, with 88 witnesses giving written evidence; 2,460 questions were asked and the committee received 14,000 letters.  Falconer’s enquiry, in comparison, was not only unbalanced but minuscule.  Consequently, it is no surprise that the Commission has found an overwhelmingly positive response to its questions. The verdict was entirely predictable because the jury was packed.

The organisations that boycotted the Commission included those who aim to protect the vulnerable, disabled and elderly from feeling that they are a burden on society and that their lives are less worthwhile than other people’s.  Notably these include the BMA, and the major disability rights organisations RADAR, UKDPC, NCIL, SCOPE and Not Dead Yet.  The reality is that the disabled are overwhelmingly against any change in the laws which at present protect them. 

The overwhelming consensus from the beginning of the process was that this committee would make recommendations that questioned the value of vulnerable peoples’ lives, or made vulnerable people question the value of their own lives to society.  The so-called “right to die” can so easily become a duty to die”.

Many legislatures have rejected such propositions, because the more closely people study the subject, the more they see the dangers.

In every country where assisted suicide is legal there have been abuses, and its legalisation would put all vulnerable people in the UK at risk.  The moment we start judging the value of other people’s lives, we stop making their protection and quality of life our priority.

Falconer’s Conclusions

“Under the proposed framework, a dying person who met the legal criteria would be able to ask their doctor to prescribe them a dose of medication that would end their life.  The person would need to be able to take the medication themselves, as a clear expression of the voluntariness of their choice. Appropriate practical support to take the medication should be provided if it is required by a terminally ill person with physical impairments but this could not take the form of another person administering the medication on their behalf (euthanasia).  The Commission does not propose that any form of euthanasia might be allowed if the law were to be changed.”

Falconer calls his proposals “a significant step that we believe would make the process of dying more humane, both for people who want some degree of control in their final illness, and their loved ones who are left behind.”

However, three of the key examples that he used – Debbie Purdy, Tony Nicklinson and Daniel James, and their relatives who would like to be able or have been involved in taking the lives of these three are not eligible.  Falconer appeals for compassion for these three, but at present Debbie Purdy and Tony Nicklinson have potentially years left to live, and Daniel James, the Welsh Rugby player who was paralysed and was taken to Dignitas to die by his parents, was not terminally ill.  Notably, all three required euthanasia, whilst the Falconer Commission only looked at assisted suicide.  This betrays the fact that whatever Falconer says about this framework, its intentions go far beyond making assisted suicide available for only a few.

The proposals also seek to make sure that those who help their “loved ones” to die are not prosecuted.  Relationships are complex, and death is a very final decision.  Changing the law so that a few people are not prosecuted, but opening up a large number of vulnerable people to coercion or death entirely against their will from those who are meant to love them is wholly wrong and very frightening, and it is irresponsible of Falconer not to see this.

The Commission states that good quality and readily available palliative care is central to any proposals, but Falconer wrote in the Guardian, “Regardless of the quality and provision of palliative care, some people want to die, and some have pain that cannot be totally alleviated.”

With all three of these ideas, it must be remembered that hard cases make bad law, and the suffering of the few  should not put the majority at risk.

Dr Peter Saunders from CNK summarises the Falconer Commission’s findings as follows: 

“This deeply worrying and flawed report does not add a single new argument or fact to the debate on assisted suicide and euthanasia and should be seen for what it is, part of a concerted effort by those who back assisted suicide and euthanasia to change the law.”

The recommendations in more detail

The Commission predictably decided that assisted dying should be permitted under certain circumstances.  The premise of the report, as with the Commission, is that “The Current Legal Status of Assisted Dying is Inadequate and Incoherent”.  The simplest answer to this is that, yes, 20-25 people each year abuse the law and have an assisted death at Dignitas in Switzerland. However, this number is minuscule compared to how many people could be expected to end their lives if either a Dutch or an Oregon style model were to be introduced.  In the case of the former we would expect 13,000 assisted deaths annually, and in the case of the latter, 800.  The law protects the majority.  We do not legalise theft because there will always be thieves, despite the fact that there are many more thefts than there are people seeking assisted dying, because the negative impact on the rest of society would be horrifying.

The Commission recommends that if Parliament were to decide to adopt assisted dying legislation in the future, this should include the following eligibility criteria (our comments are in italics):

1.     The person concerned is aged 18 or over and has a diagnosis of terminal illness.

We respond: At the most basic level, it can be seen that definitions of terminal illness vary. The report itself quotes the medical director of an English hospice (P196) “We are all going to die, so when do you call something a terminal illness?”  Further, the accuracy of prognosis can be poor.  The Commission recommends that only those with less that 12 months to live should be eligible for assisted suicide.  However, Stephen Hawking was given two months to live several decades ago.

2.     The person is making a voluntary choice that is an expression of his or her own wishes and is not unduly influenced by others.  

We respond: How can a doctor who does not know the patient well establish whether or not he or she is being coerced in a decision to die?

3.     The person has the mental capacity to make a voluntary and informed choice, and the person’s decision-making is not significantly impaired as a result of mental health problems such as depression.

We respond: It is natural to be sad following a poor prognosis, and this sadness may go away over time.

What are the safeguards?

Lord Falconer, the Commission’s chairman, has admitted the plan is not perfect, saying: “I don’t think you can ever have a system that is completely watertight.”

The safeguards recommended in the report are quoted below, our comments being in Italics:

“The Commission recommends that any future legislation should also include the following safeguards to ensure that potentially vulnerable people were protected:

1.     A decision-making model involving the assessment, advice, support and independent judgements of two independent doctors, with support from other health and social care professionals where necessary.  Obviously only doctors already in favour of assisted suicide would agree to take part.

2.     A safeguard to ensure the person has been fully informed of all other treatment and end of life care options that are available and still wishes to proceed;

3.     Safeguards to ensure that the eligibility criteria are met 

The eligibility criteria (P30) are as follows:

“The first criterion requiring a diagnosis of terminal illness would need each doctor to certify that the person had an advanced, progressive, incurable condition that is likely to lead to the patient’s death within the next 12 months.

The second criterion, requiring that the person requesting an assisted death made this request voluntarily and without coercion, would require both doctors to explore thoroughly the individual’s motivation for requesting an assisted death and to provide evidence of this voluntariness.

The third criterion would require that the individual has the mental capacity to make an informed choice. We received evidence to the effect that capacity assessments are part of every doctor’s usual responsibilities. “

As we have previously mentioned, prognoses that a person will die within 12 months are inaccurate, so this cannot be seen as an adequate safeguard even by those in favour of assisted dying.  

4.     Safeguards to ensure that the person has a settled intention to die

The document goes into greater detail (P30), stating that “the proposed safeguard is that a minimum time period of two weeks must elapse between the request being made by the subject, and the assisted death occurring.”  People’s intentions can change greatly over time, whereas two weeks is a ridiculously short time to have been suggested.

5.     Safeguards to ensure the safe storage and transportation of lethal medication

6.     Safeguards to ensure the person has a reliable and supported assisted death

7.     Safeguards to ensure that assisted deaths are reported correctly

8.     Monitoring and regulatory oversight by a national monitoring commission with powers to investigate suspected non-compliance.”

Views from the Vulnerable

One of the best ways to look at the impact of this commission is through the eyes of the vulnerable, as they are the ones who would be most immediately affected by any change in the law:

Michael Wenham (MND patient)

"So what will society say to me when I get near the end of my MND – if it’s not to allow someone to top me when I’ve had enough?  I hope it will say, “We will see you through this.  We will give you the best quality of life that’s possible.  We will provide all the palliative care that you need, including supporting your carers.  We will do everything possible to ease your symptoms and to control your pain.”  And I would say, “Please keep me comfortable.  If the pain relief should shorten my life by hours or days, that’s all right.  You’re only doing your job.  And when I should die, just let me be.

"‘Children in Need’ projected on our TV screens the courage and beauty of disabled, dependent and often dying children.  It showed us the incredible endurance and compassion of those who care for them.  There can be no question as to their worth and of the value of enhancing or at least ameliorating their lives.   We know it's right.   The society which cherishes life, even at its most tenuous, is far preferable to one which admits the principle that some lives are disposable.   'Children in Need' or the 'Commission'?  I know which vision I prefer."

Richard Hawkes (Chief Executive of the disability charity Scope)

“The current law on assisted suicide protects disabled people from being put under pressure to end their lives.

“The 'safeguards' …rely on the objectivity of doctors and social workers. Yet we have seen that medical and social care professionals themselves can make negative assumptions about disabled people’s quality of life.”

Kathryn Higham (MS patient)

"Before I was diagnosed with MS I used to have a very negative view of this type of illness but since I was diagnosed I found I have a very positive view.  People with serious illnesses who campaign for assisted suicide make it look as if everyone with MS wants to die. You never hear of the people with terminal illnesses who die a peaceful, dignified death. Having a positive attitude is 50% of the battle. “

Peter Bailey (disabled for 35 years following an accident and a trustee of Leonard Cheshire Disability) 

“Why it is that suicidal tendencies in non-disabled people trigger the possibility of being  sectioned for your own good, but when we look at disabled people it’s somehow expected and understood that you might want to kill yourself?”

From these quotations  we can see that the disabled are scared that legalising assisted suicide would mean that their care was cut, that they could be seen as a burden on the state and society, and that hospitals would be a place of danger rather than a place of safety for them.

For an inspiring account of life after paralysis, read about Matt Hampson, a former U-21 England player who has gone on “help those less fortunate than himself”.

Dr Mike Cheeseman, Consultant Geriatrician, talks about assisted dying and the care of the elderly. 

The Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have published a study in the Lancet linking increasing global numbers of unsafe abortions to countries where abortion is illegal. As the Guttmacher Institute states that one of its five aims is to allow people to “exercise the right to choose safe, legal abortion”, these conclusions come as no surprise.
 
It should be observed that legalising abortion does not lead to safe outcomes for women.  There is no shortage of documented evidence to this effect.  In fact the opposite is true.  Countries such as Chile, Poland and Ireland have extremely low maternal mortality rates.  In Poland most abortions were banned in 1993.  Subsequently, both Poland’s abortion rate and the maternal mortality rate declined, and declined rapidly.  Ireland, according to the World Health Organisation 2005 maternal mortality report, has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world.

In fact the Lancet report notes that India, where an estimated 6.5 million or 15% of global abortions occur, has liberal abortion laws, and yet an estimated two thirds of abortions there are deemed unsafe by WHO.  In Cambodia abortion is legal upon request in the first trimester, and yet over 50% of abortions are believed to be ‘unsafe’.

According to the report, the regions with the highest rate of abortion are Eastern Europe and Russia, where Communist regimes introduced liberal abortion laws decades ago.  South East Asia is the region with the second highest rate of abortion, and most of this is accounted for by Vietnam, which has very liberal abortion laws, and where there are financial penalties for parents having more than two children.  It should be noted that Marie Stopes International, a UK based organisation, is involved in abortions in Vietnam, Cambodia and India. 

Acknowledging the incidence of unsafe abortions in countries with legal abortion, the report states:
“A liberal abortion law alone does not ensure the safety of abortions”, and claims that other “necessary” steps include the dissemination of knowledge about the law to women and those who might abort them, the willingness of health professionals to carry out abortions, and other factors, including “government commitment to provide the resources needed to ensure access to abortion services, including in remote areas.”
 
The Guttmacher report correctly links poor maternal outcomes with poverty.  We would suggest that the money that they request for abortions would be better spent on initiatives which help women and their families out of poverty, and on providing better maternity care for women, of a kind known to make childbirth safer.
 
It should be added that many of the statistics that the report uses are estimates, as countries where abortion is illegal do not keep records unless complications cause admission to hospital.  Additionally, only 57 of the 84 countries which they deem to have “liberal abortion laws” collect statistics about the procedures done.  Consequently, the statistics given are affected by the assumptions of the researchers about how many women have abortions.  The reasons for having unintended pregnancies are therefore also likely to be guesswork.

Whatever the true number, the ProLife Alliance believes that every one of the abortions mentioned in this report is a tragedy. Women need real, effective aid which respects both their own lives and the lives of their babies. 

The ProLife Alliance is very concerned that easier, safer screening tests will make it all the more socially acceptable to abort disabled babies. It is also likely that healthy babies will be aborted, purely because of a perceived risk that they are affected by, or carriers of,  some sex-linked condition.  The ProLife Alliance believes that all people have a right to live, whether male or female, disabled or otherwise. 

It is also likely that unscrupulous doctors will use this test for social reasons, particularly in countries such as Korea where boys are the preferred sex.

We call for a more positive attitude towards people with disabilities, rather than the usual unrelenting ‘search and destroy’ approach to those still in the womb.

Women are not informed of the risks to their mental and physical health except in the blandest terms.  They are not made aware of the considerable body of research which demonstrates these risks.  They are not made aware of the development of their own baby.  They are not given details of support available to them should they choose to have their baby.

As the ProLife Alliance has repeatedly said, women need to know the reality of abortion BEFORE the event, rather than discovering to their horror what really happened afterwards when there is no chance of turning back the clock. 

In Texas pro-lifers have carried out a successful campaign to ensure that women have the right to know.  One aspect of their campaign is a demand that women should be given the chance to see what their baby looks like – which may include an ultrasound scan prior to the abortion.  A scan provides real, live and incontrovertible evidence and gives the ‘products of conception’ a chance to be seen for what it really is, a small and very vulnerable child.  Surely women have a right to this knowledge rather than making a decision blindly?  This particular ‘woman’s right’ has met with extreme resistance from the pro-choice lobby who have appealed repeatedly against it.  For details see link. 

In their decision the appeals court observed that it is ‘obvious’ that the ‘disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information.’ They added that denying the woman up-to-date information ‘is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.’

The ProLife Alliance would strongly urge that women wanting abortions should not be deprived of information on risks, on their baby’s development and on help available to have the child.  This should not be made in any way a ‘box to tick’ – just another part of the abortion paperwork.  Instead, the ProLife Alliance wants to see this information given to any woman wanting an abortion by any doctor she consults, pro-life or otherwise, as a matter of good medical practice and basic humanity.  Women need at least a chance to change their minds before going through with a ‘procedure’ which ends a human life, and which many women bitterly regret. 

For this reason the Falconer commission was boycotted by many of the organisations who want to protect the vulnerable, disabled and elderly from feeling that they are a burden on society and that their lives are less worthwhile than other people’s. Notably these include the BMA, and the major disability rights organisations RADAR, UKDPC, NCIL, SCOPE and Not Dead Yet. Consequently, it is no surprise that the commission has found an overwhelmingly positive response to its questions. The verdict was entirely predictable because the jury was fixed.

The reality is that the disabled are overwhelmingly against any change in the laws which at present protect them. Many legislatures have rejected such propositions, because the more closely people study the subject, the more they see the dangers. In his submission to the commission, Peter Bailey, disabled for 35 years following an accident and a trustee of Leonard Cheshire Disability, expressed this clearly:

“Why is it that suicidal tendencies in non-disabled people trigger the possibility of being sectioned for your own good, but when we look at disabled people it’s somehow expected and understood that you might want to kill yourself?”

In every country where assisted suicide is legal there have been abuses, and its legalisation would put all vulnerable people in the UK at risk. The moment we start judging the value of other people’s lives,  we stop making their protection and quality of life our priority.

For media enquiries, please contact Dominica Roberts on 01344 422902 or 079 037 69314. 

For a more detailed discussion of the Falconer Commission click here.

Rebecca Gomperts, founder of rogue abortion provider Women on Waves, is once again in the news for an initiative that puts women’s lives at risk. Her organisation is most notorious for providing abortions to women from countries where abortion is illegal in international waters, providing no aftercare. Following a court case in her native Netherlands, Women on Waves were legally obliged to cease this work in 2009. Ms Gomperts continues to provide abortions without follow-up care. She offers a web-based service for women from countries where abortion is not permitted, posting abortifacient drugs to them in blank envelopes.  

The latest incident saw her posting information on Facebook on how women can induce self-abortions at up to 9 weeks pregnancy using a pill, Cytotec, designed to treat stomach ulcers. Initially Facebook removed this information for being in violation of the site’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, however, following protests from pro-choice activists the information has been re-posted.

Gomperts’ recommendation puts women at grave risk. The active chemical in Cytotec is misoprostol, which is also administered by clinics to induce abortions. No large studies have established a protocol for the use of misoprostol alone for inducing abortions. Side effects can include profound diarrhoea leading to severe dehydration, sedation and tremors. Further, the efficacy when used for abortions can be as low as only working two thirds of the time, meaning that any surviving unborn children could face disability. Several reports in the literature associate the use of misoprostol during the first trimester of pregnancy with skull defects, cranial nerve palsies, facial malformations, and limb defects.

Facebook were right to initially remove this information. It is a great shame that Facebook has backtracked under pressure from pro-choice activists and is now sharing information that endangers women and makes Facebook complicit in the death and disabling of unborn children. 

A recent article in the Sunday Times has used information from a ProLife Alliance freedom of information request made to the Department of Health. The request revealed that between 2007 and 2010 fourteen Italian women had foeticides (where the unborn child is killed by lethal injection) in the UK but returned home to be delivered in Italy.  The information showed that during that 4 year period, 97 out of 593 Italian women who travelled to the UK had abortions after 22 weeks' gestation. This would have been illegal in Italy, where abortion is not permitted after 12 weeks’ pregnancy, except when the mother’s life is in danger.

In one two-country abortion, a woman returned to Rimini from the UK after having a foeticide abortion whilst 28 weeks’ pregnant, and the body of her baby was only removed three days later.  It is appalling to think of the woman, still carrying her dead child, making such a long journey.  Yet, according the Department of Health, this happens regularly.

Leading obstetrician Professor Stuart Campbell, who first showed the world pictures of babies “walking in the womb” commented to the Times that, “The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists needs to speak up on this issue. If we don’t look at it, are we condoning this practice of injecting a foetus, killing it and allowing the mother to fly off to wherever, without any kind of care?”

A spokesperson from the ProLife Alliance commented that “it is impossible to believe that these horrifying Italian late abortion cases have taken place without complicity from medical staff in Italy, making it highly likely that they are breaking their own law. How could specialists in our own country buy into such callous trade?”

We are forced to question whether the abortion industry really cares if abortion is ‘legal’ and ‘safe’.  The evidence points otherwise.

Absolute respect for human life is the keystone of justice. A truly just society affirms the fundamental moral equality of all human beings and provides the full protection of the law for all its members, regardless of sex, race, creed, age, size, wealth or physical or mental attainments. It bestows special protection on the weak and vulnerable and makes generous provision for those in need. It proclaims human duties as well as human rights. It cherishes virtue.

The right to life is the most important right from which all others flow. Issues such as health care, housing, education, freedom of speech, the environment, foreign policy, and so on, are of little significance if one’s life can be arbitrarily ended at various stages of its existence.

In a country where embryo destruction, abortion and euthanasia by omission are practised regularly, we choose to fight against these abuses and will address the lesser issues when the basic right to life is firmly re-instated in the political agenda.