That this House notes the most recent report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights which is severely critical of sections of the Mental Capacity Bill; notes in particular the criticism of those sections dealing with the withholding and withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment and of assisted food and fluids; further notes the conclusion that the presumption in favour of life-sustaining treatment in relation to the withdrawal of assisted food and fluids is not sufficiently strong in the Bill to satisfy the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 2, 3 and 8); believes that it would be disastrous if the Bill, which has the laudable aim of seeking to transform the lives of mentally incapacitated individuals and their carers, were to become a vehicle for the introduction of euthanasia; regrets that, despite Government assurances, the declaratory provision in Clause 58 that nothing in the Bill is to be taken to affect the law relating to murder, manslaughter and suicide is not sufficient to rule out the threat of euthanasia by omission posed by the Bill; and calls upon the Government to take note of the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to amend the Mental Capacity Bill to make it clear that it gives no statutory authority to any decision made with a purpose of bringing about the death of the person about whose personal welfare the decision is made.

That this House notes the most recent report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights which is severely critical of sections of the Mental Capacity Bill; notes in particular the criticism of those sections dealing with the withholding and withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment and of assisted food and fluids; further...

That this House notes with concern the biased and undisciplined trends in BBC coverage on a variety of issues of public policy, thus contravening the BBC charter; further notes that this has been particularly apparent on ethical issues such as euthanasia; further notes that a number of honourable Members were involved in correspondence with Mr Greg Dyke, the former Director General, on the matter of persistent bias on the question of euthanasia and, in particular, received no satisfaction on the failure of the BBC to interview the disabled or terminally ill unless they declared support for legalised euthanasia; regrets that this has been particularly apparent in the case of patients suffering from motor neurone disease; notes that a number of programmes were so biased that they were sent out by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to Peers when they were seeking support for a bill to legalise euthanasia; regrets that no BBC programme was so even-handed that it could be used to present both sides of the case to Peers; and calls on the Solicitor General to encourage the BBC governors to ensure that Mr Greg Dyke's successor has a greater understanding of the BBC Charter which he will be required to implement.

That this House notes with concern the biased and undisciplined trends in BBC coverage on a variety of issues of public policy, thus contravening the BBC charter; further notes that this has been particularly apparent on ethical issues such as euthanasia; further notes that a number of honourable Members were...

That this House welcomes the introduction of the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill and the opportunity it presents to allow terminally ill adults to make a considered request for medical assistance to die; notes that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, who examined the Bill, concluded that, '...the safeguards set out in the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill would be adequate to protect the interests and rights of vulnerable patients. They would ensure that nobody could lawfully be subjected to assisted dying without his or her fully informed consent'; and believes that this Bill is in accordance with the views of 80 per cent. of the population who support this proposal.

That this House welcomes the introduction of the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill and the opportunity it presents to allow terminally ill adults to make a considered request for medical assistance to die; notes that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, who examined the Bill, concluded that, '...the safeguards set out...

That this House welcomes the Quality of Mercy report issued by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society; notes with concern the findings that 30 per cent. of those who assist in someone else's death in the United Kingdom go on to commit suicide; notes that there is a wide disparity between the penalties laid out in law and the number of prosecutions and sentences handed down; is concerned that unlike many other countries no formal research has been carried out into end-of-life decision-making in the United Kingdom; notes that members of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have recently proposed that this issue should be researched and discussed in greater detail; and calls on the Government to carry out research into this issue as a matter of urgency.

That this House welcomes the Quality of Mercy report issued by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society; notes with concern the findings that 30 per cent. of those who assist in someone else's death in the United Kingdom go on to commit suicide; notes that there is a wide disparity between the...

That this House welcomes the recent statements from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians opposing the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, a Bill that seeks to legalise assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia; notes the BMA's assertion that legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide would have a profound and detrimental effect on the doctor-patient relationship; further notes that the Royal College of Physicians states that the Bill is the wrong response to the problem of unalleviated suffering and is potentially dangerous; further notes a recent independent survey of doctors that showed a considerable majority oppose assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia and that almost three out of four doctors would refuse to perform such practices if they were legalised; and calls upon the Government to reiterate its opposition to the legalisation of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia and to devote more resources to palliative and geriatric care.

That this House welcomes the recent statements from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians opposing the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, a Bill that seeks to legalise assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia; notes the BMA's assertion that legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide would have a profound and...

That this House notes the persistent bias of BBC programmes supporting the legalisation of euthanasia; further notes reports from the Disability Rights Commission, Disability Awareness in Action and other bodies that increasing numbers of disabled and sick people are frightened to be admitted to hospital because of the euthanasia campaign; notes the failure of the BBC to interview the disabled or terminally ill unless they declare support for legalised euthanasia; further notes the complete failure of any BBC television or radio news programme to report a major survey of doctors which showed a considerable majority opposed assisted suicide and that almost three out of four would refuse to be involved if such practices were legalised; notes a story in BBC Online undermining the survey and quoting a pro-euthanasia claim that a number of surveys show a small majority of doctors supporting euthanasia; challenges BBC governors to cite such surveys; notes that one survey claiming doctors support euthanasia was conducted for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and that no report has ever been produced by the internet company responsible for giving the number of doctors circulated, the response rate and other vital information showing the validity of the poll; notes the complete bias in the BBC News report on the tragedy of a mentally ill man who smothered his terminally ill parents, incorrectly claiming that he was discharged whereas he was placed under a two year community and rehabilitation order; and calls on the Government to require the BBC to show impartiality on all issues of public policy.

That this House notes the persistent bias of BBC programmes supporting the legalisation of euthanasia; further notes reports from the Disability Rights Commission, Disability Awareness in Action and other bodies that increasing numbers of disabled and sick people are frightened to be admitted to hospital because of the euthanasia campaign;...

That this House notes that the House of Lords' decision in the case of Pretty makes it clear that in accordance with section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961 it lies with the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide which cases he believes should or should not be prosecuted; further notes that, in particular, Lord Hope found that the DPP is entitled to form and publish a policy as to the criteria he will apply when exercising his discretion under section 2(4) of the Act; and calls upon the Government to ensure this policy is published as a matter of urgency, so families set to travel abroad to help their terminally ill relatives receive an assisted death can regulate their conduct with reference to the criminal law.

That this House notes that the House of Lords' decision in the case of Pretty makes it clear that in accordance with section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961 it lies with the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide which cases he believes should or should not be prosecuted; further...

That this House notes the suffering of patients with Motor Neurone Disease and similarly debilitating diseases and recognises the anguish of the families who care for loved ones with these conditions; regrets that these patients are being used by a lobby in favour of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia; regrets that this lobby is using the media to frighten people who may be in the early stages of these diseases; notes that palliative care is of such a high quality in the UK that these patients need not die in pain or fear; notes that specialists within the Hospice Movement have repeatedly stated that Motor Neurone Disease patients in their care very rarely, if ever, choke to death today; calls on the media to be more responsible and less biased in their coverage of this difficult topic; regrets that BBC News 24 claimed that the response to a poll, published on 20th January, indicated that 90 per cent. of British people support legalising euthanasia without giving the number of its respondents, and has refused to give the figures to interested parties since the poll; and demands that the Government do not change the existing law, and that euthanasia in all its forms, including assisted suicide, should remain illegal.

That this House notes the suffering of patients with Motor Neurone Disease and similarly debilitating diseases and recognises the anguish of the families who care for loved ones with these conditions; regrets that these patients are being used by a lobby in favour of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia; regrets...

That this House notes persistent statements by the Government rejecting euthanasia; regrets however, that in correspondence the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department now asserts that the consultation document, Making Decisions, is based upon the Law Commission 1995 Report on Mental Incapacity, a document which the Conservative Government refused to implement because it would weaken the legal prohibition on euthanasia (Hansard, 16th January 1996; columns 487-88); notes also that the Law Commission's report contradicts the 1994 Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics which the Labour Government has consistently claimed to support; recalls that the Select Committee opposed euthanasia and the enshrining in Statute Law the judgement in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1992 which permitted the withdrawal of assisted food and fluid from Mr Tony Bland with the purpose of ending his life; notes, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary's correspondence asserts that the Government's policy on the withdrawal of assisted food and fluid is based on 'settled opinion ... as expressed by the medical profession and by the judiciary as expressed in case law'; notes, however, that Bland and subsequent judgements allow only the withdrawal of tubal feeding from PVS and similar cases on application to the courts; notes that the courts have not authorised the extension of this practice of non-voluntary euthanasia by omission to include other medical conditions; and calls on the Government to withdraw 'Making Decisions; Helping People Who Have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves'.

That this House notes persistent statements by the Government rejecting euthanasia; regrets however, that in correspondence the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department now asserts that the consultation document, Making Decisions, is based upon the Law Commission 1995 Report on Mental Incapacity, a document which the Conservative Government refused...

That this House notes the Lord Chancellor's Consultation Paper, 'Making Decisions: Helping People Who Have Difficulty Deciding For Themselves'; notes that groups consulted for the document included the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and the British Medical Association both of which promote euthanasia by omission; regrets the Lord Chancellor's failure to consult with the British Hospice movement, an international beacon of excellence in the care of the terminally ill and dying; notes that no pro-life, Christian, Jewish nor Muslim medical groups were consulted; notes the Lord Chancellor's document refers inquirers to the VES for guidance on living wills and medical teams to the BMA guidelines on the Withdrawal and Withholding of Life Prolonging Treatment, a document condemned by the Chief Rabbi, Muslim leaders, the Evangelical Alliance, the Roman Catholic Church and many others for its promotion of medical killing by the withdrawal of assisted food and fluid from a wide range of patients; notes that 'Making Decisions' in line with the recommendations from an earlier Government publication of the same title, envisages a reformed 'Court of Protection' which could be beneficial regarding financial problems and such like; but regrets that this court may be used to extend the practice of non-voluntary euthanasia by omission, even over-riding the wishes of families (or patients' advance directives) in denying assisted food and fluid; urges the Government to honour its pledge to oppose euthanasia; and calls upon it to introduce legislation outlawing the withdrawal of assisted food and fluid with the purpose of causing death in patients.

That this House notes the Lord Chancellor's Consultation Paper, 'Making Decisions: Helping People Who Have Difficulty Deciding For Themselves'; notes that groups consulted for the document included the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and the British Medical Association both of which promote euthanasia by omission; regrets the Lord Chancellor's failure to consult...

That this House notes that over two years have passed since the launch of the British Medical Association's Guidelines on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatment which advocated extending the withdrawal of treatment, including assisted food and fluid, from patients who were not dying; notes that this form of treatment was described in the Voluntary Euthanasia Society Scotland Newsletter as a 'form of non-voluntary euthanasia'; regrets, therefore, that the Department of Health has failed to inform hospitals that withdrawing food and fluid with the specific purpose of causing the death of patients contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights which 'guarantees that no-one should be deprived of his life intentionally'; therefore welcomes the Right to Life Human-Rights Care Card which people may carry in the same way that they currently carry organ-donor cards; notes that over 30 Right honourable and honourable Members and Peers attended the function to launch the card; applauds the fact that it makes clear that if anybody withdraws food and fluid (howsoever delivered) from the carrier with the purpose of causing death, they could be faced with legal action, followed if necessary by an application to the European Court of Human Rights; and calls on the Government to honour its pledge to oppose euthanasia and ensure that the Human-Rights Care Card is publicised through all relevant official channels.

That this House notes that over two years have passed since the launch of the British Medical Association's Guidelines on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatment which advocated extending the withdrawal of treatment, including assisted food and fluid, from patients who were not dying; notes that this form of treatment was...

That this House notes admissions by leading members of the euthanasia lobby such as Professor Sheila McLean that the withdrawal of treatment, including food and fluid, to end the lives of PVS patients and others who are not dying endorses 'a form of non-voluntary euthanasia'; regrets that the Department of Health has done nothing to halt such practices; observes wide scale newspaper reports that the denial of resuscitation and of assisted food and fluid to elderly and some sick patients is spreading alarmingly; notes that this attitude reflects aspects of the BMA guidelines on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment which advocate extending the withdrawal of treatment, including tube feeding to a wide range of patients who are not in PVS; notes that the Deputy Minister for Community Care in Scotland has stated that doctors who follow the BMA Guidelines would be open to a criminal prosecution; regrets the failure, nonetheless, of the Department of Health to make if clear that the BMA Guidelines are not legal guidelines; notes that the Department must therefore accept responsibility for the treatment of elderly patients in some sectors of the NHS; further notes that throughout the debates on the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill the Department of Health also supported misinformed attacks by the BMA to obstruct the Bill; and invites the Government to reconsider its position and honour its stated opposition to euthanasia and to ensure the Bill is given adequate time to complete all stages.

That this House notes admissions by leading members of the euthanasia lobby such as Professor Sheila McLean that the withdrawal of treatment, including food and fluid, to end the lives of PVS patients and others who are not dying endorses 'a form of non-voluntary euthanasia'; regrets that the Department of...

That this House notes that physician-assisted-suicide advocate, Professor Sheila McLean, stated in April 1996 in the Voluntary Euthanasia Society Scotland Newsletter that the routes taken by courts in judgments allowing the withdrawal of treatment, including food and fluid, to end the lives of those in a persistent vegetative state and other patients 'endorse a form of non-voluntary euthanasia'; notes that she was a member of the drafting committee of the British Medical Association Guidelines on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment which advocates extending the withdrawal of tube feeding to a range of patients who are not in PVS and who are not dying; regrets that the Government's report, Making Decisions, endorses much of the BMA guidelines, which, if adopted, would serve to consolidate further the practice of medical killing by omission; further notes that in Scotland, the Deputy Minister for Community Care, Iain Gray, has said that any doctor who follows the BMA guidelines on non-PVS patients such as those who have suffered a stroke would be open to criminal prosecution; welcomes the Minister's statement that the Incapable Adults (Scotland) Bill 'makes no distinction between different means of delivering food and water'; further welcomes the Minister's clarification that 'nothing in the Bill will permit a patient to be denied basic care, or to be starved, dehydrated or otherwise mistreated'; and calls on the Government to adopt a similar position and withdraw its opposition to the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill and to honour its pledges to oppose euthanasia.

That this House notes that physician-assisted-suicide advocate, Professor Sheila McLean, stated in April 1996 in the Voluntary Euthanasia Society Scotland Newsletter that the routes taken by courts in judgments allowing the withdrawal of treatment, including food and fluid, to end the lives of those in a persistent vegetative state and...

That this House welcomes the individual statements from the Chief Rabbi, Professor Jonathan Sacks, and from His Grace Cardinal Thomas Winning of Glasgow, each expressing deep regret and concern at the BMA guidelines on withholding and withdrawing nutrition and hydration from patients; notes that both these important religious leaders view with alarm the fact that such treatment would deliberately end the lives of patients and 'represent a shift from a value system in which human life is considered sacrosanct to one in which its value is relative and subjective'; applauds their call to politicians, regardless of political affiliation, 'to exert their influence to curb the disturbing trend towards the legislation of euthanasia'; and in response calls, once again, on the Secretary of State immediately to circulate all hospitals and health care workers to emphasise that the BMA guidelines contravene the present law and should not be adopted.

That this House welcomes the individual statements from the Chief Rabbi, Professor Jonathan Sacks, and from His Grace Cardinal Thomas Winning of Glasgow, each expressing deep regret and concern at the BMA guidelines on withholding and withdrawing nutrition and hydration from patients; notes that both these important religious leaders view...

That this House notes with concern that the British Medical Association report on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment makes no distinction between the effect of withdrawing life-support, such as ventilation, and withdrawal of food and fluid by tube from a patient who is not dying, and that the report fails to recognise that the former action will result in a patient dying from his or her pre-existing condition whereas the latter will result in the patient dying from dehydration and starvation caused directly by the doctor, nurse or other health-care worker removing the patient's feeding tube; further notes with alarm that these guidelines are intended to be followed in a much wider range of cases and conditions than Persistent Vegetative State, relying upon the advice of one independent doctor alone without the current requirement to make an application to the courts; notes that, following the decision in the House of Lords in the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, which currently applies only to PVS patients, this could result in doctors and nurses being obliged to kill their patients by dehydration if the guidlines were ever to become accepted in practice; and calls on the Secretary of State immediately to circulate all hospitals and health-care workers to emphasise that the guidelines do not represent legal guidelines and should not be adopted.

That this House notes with concern that the British Medical Association report on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment makes no distinction between the effect of withdrawing life-support, such as ventilation, and withdrawal of food and fluid by tube from a patient who is not dying, and that the report...

That this House notes recent reports that deaths have occurred in hospitals because assisted nutrition and hydration were deliberately withheld from patients who wre not terminally ill; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to make this practice clearly illegal.

That this House notes recent reports that deaths have occurred in hospitals because assisted nutrition and hydration were deliberately withheld from patients who wre not terminally ill; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to make this practice clearly illegal.

That this House welcomes the recent vote in Oregon which confirmed the law legitimising physician-assisted suicide by a margin of three to two; notes that this is the second time the issue has been put to the voters of Oregon and the second time that it has been supported; furthermore notes that this vote is in line with the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court which rules that it was for individual US states to decide their policy with regard to physician-assisted suicide; agrees that, when asked directly, people want choice in dying despite what their political or religious leaders may state; realises that the rejection of legislating physician-assisted suicide by the British Medical Association at its recent conference was 'for the time being'; and calls on the Government to bring forth legislation which will allow doctors to legally help terminally ill and suffering patients to hasten their death.

That this House welcomes the recent vote in Oregon which confirmed the law legitimising physician-assisted suicide by a margin of three to two; notes that this is the second time the issue has been put to the voters of Oregon and the second time that it has been supported; furthermore...

That this House welcomes the unanimous (9-0) decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America to reject physician assisted suicide; agrees with Chief Justice Rehnquist that 'all civilised nations demonstrate their commitment to life' and that 'doctor assisted suicide has no place in our nation's traditions, given the country's consistent, almost universal and continuing rejection of it'; furthermore notes the 'overwhelming' rejection of euthanasia by representatives at the British Medical Association's annual conference in Edinburgh; and calls on the Government to continue with the policy of its predecessor in opposing the efforts of the vociferous few who would wish to legalise euthanasia either directly or through legally binding advance directives, living wills.

That this House welcomes the unanimous (9-0) decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America to reject physician assisted suicide; agrees with Chief Justice Rehnquist that 'all civilised nations demonstrate their commitment to life' and that 'doctor assisted suicide has no place in our nation's traditions, given...

That this House notes that the publication by the British Medical Association Ethics Committee in April of the document Advance Statements About Medical Treatment, which accepts living wills as legally binding, has been met with feelings of anxiety and dismay in many sections of the medical profession; further notes that at the recent BMA Annual Conference a motion was passed declaring the document to have been inadequately discussed at all levels within the profession; expresses disappointment that the opportunity was not given to that conference to debate the many other motions of concern regarding euthanasia and the document including a composite motion tabled by the Agenda Committee for the Conference, which listed a number of anxieties including warnings that legislation might 'limit doctors' freedom to act in the best interests of patients' and that 'general refusal of all treatment is dangerous, open to abuse and incompatible with the ethical practice of medicine'; and trusts that the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health will ensure that the Lord Chancellor's Committee considering the Government's response to the flawed Law Commission Report on Mental Incapacity is made aware not only of the motion passed by the BMA Conference, but also of the other motions delegates were not enabled to debate.

That this House notes that the publication by the British Medical Association Ethics Committee in April of the document Advance Statements About Medical Treatment, which accepts living wills as legally binding, has been met with feelings of anxiety and dismay in many sections of the medical profession; further notes that...

That this House notes with interest that in March BBC 2 has arranged to broadcast the Dutch television programme 'Death on Request', which records a Dutch doctor administering a lethal injection to his terminally ill patient; is concerned that the BBC should accurately report the real situation in the Netherlands where in a substantial number of cases euthanasia is carried out without a request from the patients, where the hospice and specialist palliative care movement is very much less developed than in the United Kingdom with the result that patients may request euthanasia in the absence of effective specialist palliative care, and that as a result of the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court, doctors in the Netherlands may practice euthanasia not only on the physically sick, but also the mentally ill and those who are simply depressed; and calls on the BBC to give a complete and balanced picture of the situation, including prime time for the discussion of the full experience of the slippery slope in the Netherlands and the work of the hospice movement.

That this House notes with interest that in March BBC 2 has arranged to broadcast the Dutch television programme 'Death on Request', which records a Dutch doctor administering a lethal injection to his terminally ill patient; is concerned that the BBC should accurately report the real situation in the Netherlands...