Send response to journal:
Re: Change of BMA policy on euthanasia is not representative
 

So the BMA has changed its policy on its long standing opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The annual representative meeting is supposed to be representative – it was anything but that on this issue. It was manipulation of proceedings by those in authority determined to get their way.

The earlier motion against physician assisted suicide, was carried by an overwhelming majority. What your news item does not make public is that standing orders were suspended at the start of the proceedings, so that people could not challenge the tactics used to force through this apparent ‘change of policy’. Furthermore you have not made public that the three options - pro-euthanasia, neutral, and opposed to euthanasia - were not all voted on, because having gained a majority for the neutral vote the meeting did vote on the final option opposed to euthanasia. It was certainly wrong to suggest that the three options were mutually exclusive, because many would have voted for the neutral stance in case the stronger option was lost, and did not realise the implications of the voting procedure.

On such an important moral issue which undepins the practice of medicine, the medical profession deserves a proper referendum type vote of all its membership, rather than a change of policy by dubious procedural tactics.