That this House notes the contents of EDM 2749; expresses its condolences to the family of motor neurone disease sufferer, Paul Bennett; regrets the manner in which his assisted suicide in Switzerland was politicised and publicised by the euthanasia lobby; further regrets the exploitation of Mr Bennett's family who were led to believe they could face 14 years imprisonment for travelling with him to Switzerland; further notes that of 54 Britons travelling to Switzerland for assisted suicide, in not one case any action has been taken against those accompanying them; further notes that such cases are legally very complex since it is difficult to say to what extent it would breach the law to act as travelling companions in such circumstances or what public benefit it would serve for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action; recalls that the legislation of assisted suicide is opposed by national bodies representing the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu communities as well as atheists and Christians; further notes that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland and the Royal College of Nursing all maintain policies opposing euthanasia; calls on the Home Office to inform Parliament how the police learned of the action of Mr Bennett and his family and on what grounds they were investigated; and calls on the Government to maintain the law opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

That this House notes the contents of EDM 2749; expresses its condolences to the family of motor neurone disease sufferer, Paul Bennett; regrets the manner in which his assisted suicide in Switzerland was politicised and publicised by the euthanasia lobby; further regrets the exploitation of Mr Bennett's family who were...

That this House welcomes the motion passed overwhelmingly by the British Medical Association's (BMA) 2006 Conference opposing the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide; notes that this overturned the motion of neutrality passed at the end of last year's conference; further notes that this opposition to euthanasia is supported by national bodies representing the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu communities as well as atheists and Christians; further notes that the World Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons who treat some of the most distressing forms of cancer, and the Royal College of Nursing all maintain policies opposing euthanasia; further notes that this vote thereby brings the BMA back into line with the views of grassroots doctors in the UK and with the international medical community; further notes doctors' observations that persistent requests for assisted dying are extremely rare when good palliative care is available; further notes doctors' concerns that a right to die could easily become a duty to die; and calls on the Government to withstand any further attempts to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide and to ensure that high quality palliative care is available to all who need it.

That this House welcomes the motion passed overwhelmingly by the British Medical Association's (BMA) 2006 Conference opposing the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide; notes that this overturned the motion of neutrality passed at the end of last year's conference; further notes that this opposition to euthanasia is supported by...

That this House is saddened by the death of the terminally ill doctor Anne Turner who chose to travel to Switzerland to receive assistance to die; hopes that her son and daughters who accompanied her are treated with compassion and sensitivity by the authorities on their return to the UK; is concerned that this is the 42nd case of its kind in the past three years and yet the Director of Public Prosecutions still refuses to publish guidance as to whether family members who accompany their relatives overseas for an assisted death are breaking the law; notes that recent research by Clive Seale from Brunel University has uncovered that, on average, there are eight illegal assisted deaths performed by doctors in the UK every day; and believes this sensitive issue should be further discussed in this House.

That this House is saddened by the death of the terminally ill doctor Anne Turner who chose to travel to Switzerland to receive assistance to die; hopes that her son and daughters who accompanied her are treated with compassion and sensitivity by the authorities on their return to the UK;...

That this House congratulates Professor Clive Seale and his team at the School of Social Sciences and Law, Brunel University, on the survey among doctors on End of Life Decisions; notes it is the first in-depth study of its kind in the United Kingdom; further notes that according to the survey, only 2.6 per cent. of doctors favour a change in the law relating to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide; further notes this is in stark contrast to the discredited claims by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society stating that around 50 per cent. of doctors in the United Kingdom wish to change the law to allow euthanasia; further notes that less than 0.5 per cent. of deaths in 2004 resulted from euthanasia but that this nonetheless amounts to 3,000 per annum; further notes that a further 30.5 per cent. of deaths were due to withdrawing or withholding treatment; recognises that in the majority of cases the decision taken would be due to the futility of the treatment concerned or because it would be too onerous for the patient; nonetheless calls on the Government to carry out further inquiries into what the British Medical Association has complained of as a tiny minority of doctors acting illegally in deliberately ending a patient's life; and further calls on the Government to check on patients' lives being deliberately ended through the withdrawal of treatment and to circulate guidance to hospitals to make it clear that this is in breach of the law on homicide.

That this House congratulates Professor Clive Seale and his team at the School of Social Sciences and Law, Brunel University, on the survey among doctors on End of Life Decisions; notes it is the first in-depth study of its kind in the United Kingdom; further notes that according to the...

That this House notes the biased coverage given by the BBC on 10th October to Lord Joffe, who announced his intention to re-introduce a Bill to legalise physician-assisted suicide; notes Lord Joffe's persistent claim that his Bill will follow the Oregon legislation, which he cites as excellent; further notes, however, that no other state in America has followed the example of Oregon and that 12 states have rejected similar legislation, citing in debates the deleterious effects experienced there; regrets that there was nobody on the programme to raise and clarify such points; further notes that Five Live on the same day interviewed a member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society who has multiple sclerosis and called for physician-assisted suicide with nobody to give the alternative view; further notes the BBC's failure to take account of the Disability Rights Commission, which takes no moral stand on euthanasia, but is opposed to any such legislation because of the effects on the rights of people with disability, and that every disability rights group in the UK holds the same position; recalls that in 2003 and 2004 honourable Members objected repeatedly to the manner in which the BBC contravened its Charter by persistently supporting the campaign to legalise euthanasia and received no satisfaction regarding protests against the failure of the BBC to interview the disabled or terminally ill unless they declared support for euthanasia; and calls on the Solicitor General to require the BBC to abide by its Charter and to show impartiality on all issues of public policy.

That this House notes the biased coverage given by the BBC on 10th October to Lord Joffe, who announced his intention to re-introduce a Bill to legalise physician-assisted suicide; notes Lord Joffe's persistent claim that his Bill will follow the Oregon legislation, which he cites as excellent; further notes, however,...

That this House welcomes the news that the Church of England General Synod has again rejected the legalisation of both euthanasia and assisted suicide; notes that the vote rejected the legalisation of both euthanasia and assisted suicide; further notes that the vote was 293 against to one in favour; applauds His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury for his courageous and forthright leadership on the issue; further notes that the overwhelming vote shows clearly that the occasional pro-euthanasia Church of England clergy who claim to speak for the Anglican Communion rather than the bishops is completely out of step with the body of the church; and calls on the Government to oppose any bills aimed at legalising physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.

That this House welcomes the news that the Church of England General Synod has again rejected the legalisation of both euthanasia and assisted suicide; notes that the vote rejected the legalisation of both euthanasia and assisted suicide; further notes that the vote was 293 against to one in favour; applauds...

That this House notes with concern that a strong pro-euthanasia campaign has been run by a group in the British Medical Association (BMA) Ethics Committee, the Chairman of which is Dr Michael Wilks; further notes that three of its members gave evidence for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying Bill; further notes that in the last year Dr Wilks twice attempted to dissuade the BMA Medical Students Branch from opposing euthanasia and assisted dying, on one occasion declaring they had `to get morals out of the picture'; futher notes that at this year's annual conference three motions on euthanasia were produced which were never considered by grass roots divisions; further notes, however, that a motion giving the BMA a neutral stand on patient-assisted suicide was passed, although no vote was taken on the motion opposing euthanasia; further notes that after the debate Dr Wilks declared on leaving the platform `I no longer need to say I do not know what the BMA policy is on euthanasia', although he must have known that policy had always opposed all forms of euthanasia; questions the appropriateness of Dr Wilks chairing both the Agenda Committee and the Conference; and calls on the Government to maintain its opposition to doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

That this House notes with concern that a strong pro-euthanasia campaign has been run by a group in the British Medical Association (BMA) Ethics Committee, the Chairman of which is Dr Michael Wilks; further notes that three of its members gave evidence for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to the House...

That this House welcomes the decision of the Royal College of General Practitioners and Physicians to reject the neutral stand on physician-assisted dying taken by the College when it gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill; notes this resulted from demands by grass roots members who oppose euthanasia; regrets, however, that this was followed by the British Medical Association's (BMA) annual conference passing a motion withdrawing opposition to physician-assisted suicide and adopting a neutral stand; further notes that three motions were presented to the conference opposing euthanasia, supporting a neutral stand on assisted suicide and supporting euthanasia; deplores that these in their final form were presented on the day of the vote when of 304 voting delegates only 175 remained; further notes that none of the BMA divisions throughout the country saw the motions and that of the Association's 11 branches of practice, only one, the Medical Students, had debated the subject; notes that their motion for the annual conference rejected euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide; further notes that the three motions were presented in reverse order allowing votes only on supporting euthanasia (72 votes for and 101 against) and for the Association taking a neutral stand (93 for and 82 against); regrets that no vote was taken on the motion opposing euthanasia; and calls on the Government to reiterate its opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia.

That this House welcomes the decision of the Royal College of General Practitioners and Physicians to reject the neutral stand on physician-assisted dying taken by the College when it gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill; notes this resulted...

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 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 with profound concern the announcement by health ministers that they intend to make the abortifacient 'morning after' pill available over the counter, thus undermining still further respect for both human life and for the institution of marriage; observes with regret that the present Government also opposes attempts to amend the law to prevent euthanasia; deeply regrets also its lowering to 16 years of the age at which buggery is permitted for both boys and girls, and that it remains committed to removing the ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools; observes with sadness its continuing widespread promotion of contraceptives to teenagers; further regrets the Government's active support for the creation and use of human clones for scientific research; denounces this systematic assault upon the dignity of human life, the institution of marriage, and the traditional moral ethos of our nation; and calls upon the Jewish, Christian, Muslim and other faith communities of the United Kingdom to speak now before all in which they believe is destroyed.

That this House notes with profound concern the announcement by health ministers that they intend to make the abortifacient 'morning after' pill available over the counter, thus undermining still further respect for both human life and for the institution of marriage; observes with regret that the present Government also opposes...

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...