By Dr. Peter Saunders
Editor’s note. Dr. Saunders is a former general surgeon and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organization with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. “Gosport” refers to the scandal at the hospital in Hampshire in which the lives of 456 patients were “shortened” through the excessive use of painkillers between 1989 and 2000.
The former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, rebranded ‘Dignity in Dying’ (DID) in 2006, in order to disguise its real objectives, has always been quick to emphasise that it only supports a change in the law to allow so-called ‘assisted dying’.
By this it means allowing mentally competent adults with less than six months to live to end their lives by being assisted to drink a lethal draft of barbiturate. ‘Assisted dying’ is, more accurately, assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
Both the Marris bill, which was defeated in the House of Commons in 2015, and the Falconer Bill, which ran out of parliamentary time in the House of Lords several months earlier, applied this ‘assisted dying’ formula. So did the “Conway” case, recently rejected by the Court of Appeal. All were understandably backed by DID.
DID, therefore, have always maintained that they oppose assisted suicide or euthanasia for the chronically ill, disabled people, and those who lack mental capacity. You have to be a mentally competent adult with under six month’s life expectancy to qualify.
It was therefore interesting to see them so actively involved in the recent Supreme Court case involving a man (“Mr. Y”) who was left in a minimally conscious state (MCS) following a heart attack.
The Supreme Court ruled on July 30 that it is no longer necessary for cases involving patients suffering from PVS (permanent vegetative state) or MCS to go to the Court of Protection before CANH (clinically assisted nutrition and hydration) can be stopped, provided that both doctors and relatives are in agreement that this is in the patient’s ‘best interests’.
The judgement built on legal precedent dating back to the case of Hillsborough victim Tony Bland in 1993 – namely that death is some people’s ‘best interests’ and that deliberate dehydration is a legitimate means of achieving it.
The effect of last week’s ruling is that patients with PVS and MCS can now be dehydrated to death over a period of 2 to 3 weeks without recourse to the courts providing doctors and relatives agree that they would not have wanted to go on living with this degree of disability.
But adults with PVS or MCS lack mental competence and are not dying. They can breathe without ventilators, respond to painful stimuli and often live for years, if not decades, provided their basic requirements for food and fluids are met.
They most certainly do not fall in the category of patients that DID have previously targeted and by no stretch of the imagination can their deaths from dehydration therefore be called ‘assisted dying’.
It is therefore most revealing that the barrister representing “Mrs. Y” in the case, was none other than Victoria Butler-Cole, the chair of trustees of DID’s sister charity ‘Compassion in Dying’ (CID).
On the day that the Supreme Court handed down its decision other staff and trustees of DID were also very active on the media in support of the decision. These included chief executive Sarah Wootton, director of legal strategy and policy Davina Hehir and trustee Jonathan Romain.
In the Netherlands, where voluntary euthanasia is legal, death by deliberate dehydration (by withdrawing or withholding food and fluids) is categorised as an end of life decision with the ‘explicit intention of ending life’. This is because that is what it actually is, and the Dutch are not known for beating about the bush.
It is a method of killing.
Other decisions in this category include euthanasia (achieved with a lethal injection of barbiturate), assisted suicide (as above), deliberate morphine overdose (as used recently in Gosport to kill over 450 people) and continuous deep sedation (whereby a patient is sedated until they eventually die from dehydration).
These practices, apart from euthanasia itself, all represent ‘euthanasia by stealth’. In other words they are methods of deliberately ending a person’s life that fall short of administering a lethal injection.
But they have the same intention. The key issue morally and ethically is the intention to end life.
DID’s behaviour around this Supreme Court case is not new but has in fact been part of pro-euthanasia strategy for over 30 years.
Dr. Helga Kuhse, a leading campaigner for euthanasia, said in 1984:
‘If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care – especially the removal of food and fluids – they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient’s best interest, they will accept the lethal injection.’ (Fifth Biennial Congress of Societies for the Right to Die, held in Nice, Sept. 1984).
So we should not be surprised by last week’s events. Rather, they demonstrate the full extent of DID’s (and CID’s) agenda and the lengths they are prepared to go in order to achieve it. Including dehydrating non-dying disabled people to death – which I suggest could be described neither as dignified nor compassionate.
The great tragedy is that although patients with PVS or MCS lack some or in severe cases all awareness, they still respond to pain.
Therefore, we can expect as this new ruling takes effect, for reports to surface about brain-damaged patients suffering pain and distress from thirst while they are being dehydrated to death.
You can be sure that this will then be used as an argument to bring in lethal injections in order to achieve the desired end more quickly and with the minimum of fuss.
After all, it will be argued, that is what these patients would have really wanted.
Editor’s note. This appeared on Dr. Saunders’ blog and is reposted with permission.