UCL Debate - 'This House would legalise assisted dying'

A debate at University College London on Monday night allowed the issue of assisted suicide to be addressed.  

UCL’s Cruciform Building was the impressive setting for the motion, ‘This House would legalise Assisted Dying’, I was in the opposition team with Lord Carlile, Baroness Finlay and Robert Preston – leading lights in the think tank Living and Dying Well.

Speaking for the motion were Lord Falconer, Baroness Jay, Sir Terence English and Prof Raymond Tallis, all of Dignity in Dying (the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and its small medical wing.

We were given seven minutes each. Here is my talk which focused on the issue of the ‘slippery slope’. A full report of the debate is available on the CNK website. 

The four main groups resisting the legalisation of assisted dying in this country – doctors, disabled people, faith groups and parliamentarians – do so primarily because they are anxious about the consequences of licensing of doctors to dispense lethal drugs.

Their concerns are both about how such a system could be regulated and also about the pressure legalization would place on vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial or emotional burden on others.

This is heightened by the evidence of incremental extension or mission creep in other jurisdictions.

In the Netherlands which legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia in 2002 there has been an increase of 10 to 20% of euthanasia cases per year since 2006 from 1,923 to 4,188. The 2012 figures included 42 with early dementia and 13 with psychiatric conditions.

In addition in 2001 about 5.6% of all deaths in the Netherlands were related to deep-continuous sedation. This rose to 8.2% in 2005 and 12.3% in 2010. A significant proportion of these deaths involve doctors deeply sedating patients and then withholding fluids with the explicit intention that they will die.

Children as young as twelve can already have euthanasia and a 2005 paper in the New England Medical Journal reported on 22 babies with spina bifida and/or hydrocephalus who were killed by lethal injection in the Netherlands over a seven year period. It estimated that there actually 15 to 20 newborns being killed in this way per year - despite this still being illegal. The culture and public conscience have changed.

In Belgium, which legalised euthanasia in 2002, there has been a 500% increase in euthanasia deaths over ten years between 2003 and 2012. High profile cases include Mark and Eddy Verbessem, the 45-year-old deaf identical twins, who were euthanised by the Belgian state, after their eyesight began to fail; then there is Nathan/Nancy Verhelst, whose life was ended in front of TV cameras, after a series of botched sex-change operations. His mother said she hated girls, found her child 'so ugly' at birth and did not mourn his death. And then there is Ann G, who had anorexia and who opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for the life-threatening condition.

Organ donation euthanasia is already practised in Belgium and the Belgian Senate is tomorrow discussing plans to extend the programme to minors and people with dementia (they have since recommended this). Already in parts of Belgium one in three cases of euthanasia is involuntary and half go unreported. And there has been not one prosecution for abuses in the last ten years – perhaps because the one of the lead euthanasia practitioners – Distelmans – chairs the very committee that is meant to regulate his activity.

Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, first released assisted suicide statistics in 2009, laying bare a 700% rise in cases (from 43 to 297) from 1998 to 2009. Amongst those travelling from abroad to end their lives at the notorious Dignitas facility have been many people who could not by any stretch be described as terminally ill – and included cases of people who could have lived for decades ending their lives -  with arthritis, blindness, spinal injury, diabetes, mental illness -  or people who were essentially well but could not bear to live without their spouses.

Dignitas has attracted much criticism in recent years over accounts of discarded cremation urns dumped in Lake Zurich, reports of body bags in residential lifts, suicides being carried out in car parks, the selling of the personal effects of deceased victims and profiteering with fees approaching £8,000 per death. 

In the US state of Oregon there has been a 350% increase assisted in suicide deaths since legalisation. I’ll leave it to my colleagues to expand on the details but notable are two people with cancer – Randy Stroup and Barbara Wagner – who were told that the Oregon Health Authority would not pay for their chemotherapy but would happily pay for their assisted suicide – which was of course much cheaper. Is this really the kind of temptation that we wish to put before NHS managers in Britain? Is it any wonder that over 120 attempts to change the law through US state parliaments have failed?

The problem is that any law allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia will carry within it the seeds of its own extension.

And whilst Lord Falconer may claim to have limited objectives - on his coat tails are a host of other UK groups with more radical agendas – FATE, SOARS, the BHA, NSS and EXIT International.

They will not be satisfied with the so-called modest changes he seeks but they are using exactly the same arguments to advance their case – ‘compassion’ and ‘choice’

They are able to use exactly the same arguments because Lord Falconer’s position is at heart both illogical and discriminatory.

• If adults can have it why can’t children who are judged to be Gillick competent?
• If competent people can have it what about those with dementia who it is argued would have wanted it?
• If people who are terminally ill why not the chronically ill or disabled who are suffering unbearably?
• If it's for those with physical suffering why not those with mental suffering?

Or as Exit international asks – why not the elderly bereaved and the troubled teen?

There will inevitably be pressure to extend the boundaries which may well not survive legal challenge once the so-called ‘right’ is available for some.

We will hear – it is only for this group or only for that group - but I tell you – it is only the beginning

Any law allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia in any circumstances at all will be subject to extension - or abuse

And that it is the other problem –changing the law would give doctors a degree of power over life and death that some will inevitably abuse.

It will be doctors who see the patients, fill out the forms, dispense the lethal drugs. Some of them will push the boundaries. Some will falsify certification. There may be some who, like Harold Shipman, will develop a taste for killing and they will be very difficult to detect.

But many will simply be too busy, too pressured and facing too many demands to make the kind of cool comprehensive objective assessments that this kind of law requires. And very few of them will really know the patients or their families.

We have seen this already with abortion. We began with a very strict law which allowed it only in limited circumstances. Now there are 200,000 cases a year. Most of them fall outside the boundaries of the law. There is illegal pre-signing of forms, abortions for sex selection, abortions on demand for spurious mental health reasons. And only one conviction for illegal abortion in 45 years.

Society is reluctant to touch and question doctors. The police are reluctant to investigate. The DPP hesitates to prosecute. The courts are unwilling to convict. Parliament turns a blind eye. It is simply not safe to give doctors this sort of power because some will abuse it as they have in other countries and it will be very difficult to stop them.

It’s far better not to go there at all.

The best system available is that which we have currently – a law carrying a blanket prohibition on both assisted suicide and euthanasia but with discretion given to both prosecutors and judges to temper justice with mercy in hard cases – the current law has both a stern face and a kind heart.

In other words the penalties that it holds in reserve act as a powerful deterrent to exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people

And it works – there are very few cases observed (just 15-20 per year make the trip to Switzerland) but also very few prosecutions. 

Let’s keep it that way.

Belgium’s meteoric rise to become euthanasia capital of the world

Please sign this petition to stop child euthanasia in Europe. It takes only a minute to do. 

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia. 

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

Belgium's law, which came into effect in 2002, permits euthanasia for those in a ‘medically hopeless’ situation due to a serious and incurable condition caused by injury or illness, with physical and/or psychological suffering which is constant and unbearable, and cannot be mitigated.

But it is clear that in practice the boundaries are continually migrating and the nation's moral conscience is shifting year on year. Call it incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope - whatever - it is strongly in evidence in Belgium.

Assisted suicide is treated the same as euthanasia when reported, despite its position in law being unclear.

Here is a series of articles, both on this blog and elsewhere, which chart the steps in Belgium’s meteoric rise to become euthanasia capital of the world. Much of this material has not been covered by the British media in spite of the fact that Belgium is one of our very closest European neighbours.

With the Falconer and MacDonald bills currently before the House of Lords and Scottish Parliament respectively Britain needs to take sober warning from events across the English Channel.

Terminally transsexual: Concerns raised over Belgian euthanised after botched sex change

(National Post, 22 November 2013)

Death by doctor: Controversial physician has made his name delivering euthanasia when no one else will

(National Post, 22 November 2013)

Belgium debates euthanising suffering children 
(Deutsche Welle, 22 November 2013)

Belgian Senate will vote on bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities on 26 November 

(Alex Schadenberg, 21 November 2013)

Belgium’s grisly descent down euthanasia’s slippery slope

(Wesley Smith, 21 November 2013)

A deadly conflict of interest: why euthanasia in Belgium is so out of control

(Tom Mortier, 20 November 2013)

Belgium moves to make euthanasia legal for children, dementia patients

(National Post, 31 October 2013)

Euthanasia and Assisted suicide - more worrying developments in Belgium and the Netherlands

(Peter Saunders, 15 August 2013)

Belgium and the Netherlands escalate their children’s euthanasia programmes

(Peter Saunders, 17 June 2013)

Stunning 5,000% increase in Belgian euthanasia cases in eleven years since legalisation

(Peter Saunders, 6 April 2013)

Belgium becomes world leader in organ removal after euthanasia as Oxford academics suggest the practice could generate 2,200 more organs a year in UK

(Peter Saunders, 16 March 2013)

Fresh warning sounded to UK as euthanasia deaths increase by 25% in Belgium in just one year

(Alex Schadenberg, 2 March 2013)

Belgian twin euthanasia story is just the tip of a chilling iceberg

(Peter Saunders, 28 January 2013)

Deaf twins killed by legal euthanasia had to search two years before they found someone who would do it

(National Post, 14 January 2013)

Euthanasia is out of control in Belgium – new ten year review

(Peter Saunders, 10 December 2012)

Euthanasia in Belgium: Ten years on 
(European Institute of Bioethics, April 2012)

Using organs from euthanasia victims now an established procedure in Brave New Belgium

(Peter Saunders, 12 June 2011)

Belgian Senate will vote on bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities on 26 November

Alex Schadenberg is chair of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International. The following article is reproduced with permission from his blog.

Euthanasie Stop in Belgium is reporting that the Belgian Senate will vote on the bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities on 26 November. Earlier reports suggested that the bill might be delayed until after the next election. Insiders recently learned of a political trade-off with the Flanders N-VA party which has enabled the Socialist party to bring this bill to a vote immediately.

Currently the Belgian euthanasia law limits euthanasia to people who are at least 18 years old. This unprecedented bill would extend euthanasia to children with disabilities.

The Belgian Socialist government is adamant that the euthanasia law needs to extend to minors and people with dementia even though there is significant examples of how the current law is being abused and the bracket creep of acceptable reasons for euthanasia continues to grow. The current practice of euthanasia in Belgium appears to have become an easy way to cover-up medical errors.

EPC needs you to email Annemie Turlelboom, Minister of Justice at: info@just.fgov.be  and Laurette Onkelinx, Minister of Social Affairs and Health at: info@laurette-onkelinx.be or dg-soc@minsoc.fed.be. 

Sample letter: 

I am writing to urge you to stop the initiative that promotes euthanasia of minors. 

Regardless of disability, life should be valued. To pass legislation that allows termination of life for people with disabilities who are minors is unacceptable. 

Instead we must make every effort to use the research provided to us to provide attentive care to relieve their physical suffering in a moral way. 

Please oppose the euthanasia of children! 

Sincerely...

The number of euthanasia deaths in Belgium is skyrocketing with an increase of 25% in 2012. Recent studies indicate that up to 47% of all assisted deaths are not being reported, 32% of all assisted deaths are being done without request and nurses are killing their patients, even though the law restricts euthanasia to doctors.

Some Belgian experts are supporting the extension of euthanasia to children with disabilities because they say that it is being done already. The same medical experts suggest that the extension of euthanasia will result in an increase of 10 to 100 euthanasia deaths each year.

The Belgian euthanasia law appears out-of-control. The Belgian Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission appear to be in a conflict of interest. The Commission supported the euthanasia deaths of: Nathan Verhelst (44) who was born as Nancy,Ann G who had Anorexia Nervosa and was sexually exploited by her psychiatrist, Mark & Eddy Verbessem, and at least one depressed woman. These are only the cases that we know about.

Dr Wim Distelmans, who is the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium has also been the chairman of the Belgian euthanasia commission for more than 10 years, and the commission has been stacked with supporters of the euthanasia lobby.

All of this is occurring after the recent launch of EPC - Europe, a coalition of groups and individuals from across Europe who are working together to halt the growing threat of state-sanctioned euthanasia.

The EPC - Europe launch included a debate between myself and euthanasia promoter Professor Jan Bernheim. During the question and answer session, Bernheim admitted that there are problems with the Belgian euthanasia law while Professor Etienne Vermeersch, an author of the Belgian euthanasia law stated that the euthanasia law was designed for people with disabilities.

The experience with euthanasia in Belgium should concern everyone.

More detail on this story in Deutsche Welle 

Belgium’s grisly descent down euthanasia’s slippery slope

Wesley J Smith (pictured), is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant for the Patients’ Rights Council. He also acts as a consultant for the Centre of Bioethics and Culture (CBC). This article is reproduced with permission from their website.  

If you want to see what happens when a society enthusiastically swallows the euthanasia poison, look at Belgium. Perhaps influenced by its neighbour the Netherlands — which pioneered euthanasia permissiveness — Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002. The country has since leaped head-first off a vertical moral cliff.

As usual, when the law was being debated, supporters described it as being strictly limited to those at the end of life for whom nothing else but killing would adequately alleviate suffering. That is definitely not how things have worked out.

The international media usually ignore euthanasia and assisted suicide abuses. But even the complacent Fourth Estate couldn’t ignore the joint euthanasia deaths of disabled Belgian identical twins named Marc and Eddy Verbessem.

Neither of the brothers had contracted a terminal illness. Nor were they in physical pain. Rather, having been born deaf, and at age 45, both were progressively losing their eyesight. As the Telegraph reported, “The pair told doctors that they were unable to bear the thought of being unable to see each other again.” When their own doctor wouldn’t kill them, they found their executioner in one Dr David Dufour, who calmly and coolly told a television newscast:

‘They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well and a rich conversation. Then they separation from their parents and [each] brother was very serene and beautiful. At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.’

In a morally sane society, Dufour would lose his license to practice medicine and be tried for homicide. But Belgium apparently no longer fits that description.

Perhaps the Verbessem lethal injections should not surprise us. In the last few years, euthanasia consciousness has bored deeply into Belgian societal bone marrow.

Joint Euthanasia Deaths of Elderly Couples

At least two elderly couples who didn’t want to live apart have also been reported. The first was in 2011 — and apparently the local community knew about the plan and approved. They even made their final arrangements at the local mortuary before being killed. The couple’s demise was celebrated by a Belgian bioethicist who said: “It is an important signal to break a taboo,” adding, “This is a beautiful example that allows us to provide a dignified death to this couple, thanks to euthanasia.” Most societies see joint suicides by elderly couples as tragic. In Belgium, apparently, they are ‘beautiful.’

Euthanasia after Sexual Exploitation by Psychiatrist 

Bioedge recently posted a story, taken from Belgian news reports, about the euthanasia of “Ann G.” Ann was a suicidal anorexia patient who publicly accused her previous psychiatrist of persuading her into sexual relations. When the psychiatrist — who admitted the charge — was not severely disciplined, Ann went to a second psychiatrist for euthanasia. She died at age 44.

Euthanasia for a Botched Sex Change

Nathan Verhelst underwent a sex change surgery from woman to man, and then was euthanized because of despair over the result. From the Daily Mail story:

‘A Belgian transsexual has chosen to die by euthanasia after a botched sex change operation to complete his transformation into a man left him a “monster”. Nathan Verhelst, 44, died yesterday afternoon after being allowed have his life ended on the grounds of "unbearable psychological suffering" . . . In the hours before his death he told Belgium’s Het Laatse Nieuws: "I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself."’

So, Dufour — the same doctor who killed the disabled twins — killed him! Words rarely fail me. But they do here.

Euthanasia and Organ Harvesting of the Disabled

The joining of voluntary euthanasia and organ harvesting in Belgium first came to light in a 2008. The doctors who removed the woman’s organs after her death published a letter in the medical journal, Transplantation, reporting that a totally paralyzed woman first asked for euthanasia — permission granted — and then to donate her organs after her heart stopped.

Since this first known case, other euthanasia killings followed by organ harvesting have been reported. In 2009, Transplantation Proceedings published an article entitled, “Organ Procurement After Euthanasia: Belgian Experience,” in which doctors described euthanasia accompanied by organ harvests from disabled patients in clinical detail.

Euthanasia and organ donation has now expanded to include at least one patient with a severe mental illness. As reported in “Initial Experience with Transplantation of Lungs,” published in 2011 Applied Cardiopulmonary Pathophysiology (PDF), four patients (three disabled and one mentally ill) were euthanized and their lungs harvested.

By joining euthanasia with organ donation, Belgium crossed a very dangerous bridge by giving society autilitarian stake in euthanasia. But the acceptance of joint killing and harvesting also sends the cruel message to disabled, or mentally ill people: “Your deaths have greater value than your lives.” In such a milieu, self-justifying bromides about “choice” and the “voluntary” nature “of the process” become mere rationalization.

What’s next for Belgium? Euthanasia for children! — currently being debated in the Parliament and expected to become law. But why be surprised? Once killing is accepted as an answer to human difficulty and suffering, the power of sheer logic dictates that there is no bottom.

A deadly conflict of interest: why euthanasia in Belgium is so out of control

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia.

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

But why Belgium? 

One of the reasons seems to be because of the utter failure of regulation of the practice which is exacerbated by serious conflicts of interests. One of the leading euthanasia doctors actually chairs the regulatory committee that is mean to supervise him! Other members of his ‘Commission’ are pro-euthanasia activists.

Dr Tom Mortier (pictured), Leuven University College, and Dr Georges Casteur, General Medical Practitioner, Ostend, lift the lid on Belgium’s euthanasia governance fiasco. Dr Tom Mortier is also a member of the Belgian group - Euthanasie Stop. Parts of this article were previously published by the Belgian Medical Newspaper

In October 2013, the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium, Wim Distelmans, received international media attention for the second time. Under his ‘medical’ guidance, he killed 44-year-old Nathan Verhelst, who was born as Nancy. Distelmans, who is an oncologist, said on the Belgian radio that his patient met ‘all’ the conditions of the euthanasia law. Furthermore, Distelmans said that unbearable suffering under the Belgian euthanasia law can be both physical and psychological.

In the case of Nathan Verhelst, euthanasia was done for reasons of psychological suffering. Distelmans said that it is not exceptional for mentally ill patients to be euthanized. When he was asked about the terms of the legislation, Distelmans replied laconically that a second opinion should be sought from two other doctors, and when the patient is not terminally ill, one doctor must be a psychiatrist. Furthermore, a month must pass between the written request for euthanasia and the lethal injection.

However, according to the Belgian euthanasia law, the opinions of the two other doctors are not binding; and the doctor who does the euthanasia can ignore a negative opinion and still give a patient the lethal injection. Basically, in Belgium, a person only needs to find a euthanasia doctor who is willing to kill! The euthanasia doctor only has to have two written reports in the medical record approving euthanasia of the patient and the doctor can ignore any negative reports.

It is striking to see that Distelmans, as the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium, has been given so much freedom. Distelmans has become a Belgian media icon who continually propagates his ideology through various newspapers and magazines. His institutional background also has enabled him to be honoured as the ‘hero of the Belgian euthanasia law’. He has been the chairman of the Belgian Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission (Belgian Commission) for more than ten years.

Furthermore, he has started his own ideological association (Leif) that is giving awards to other members of the Belgian Commission. For instance, the retired Senator Jacinta De Roeck, a pro-euthanasia activist, was recently honoured by Distelmans with a ‘lifetime achievement award’, which is ironic as already more than 8000 euthanasia cases have been registered in Belgium since 2002.

As the chairman of the Belgian Commission, Distelmans is ‘controlling’ his euthanasia law, while continuing to administer lethal injections after ‘consulting’ with his close colleagues. Therefore, we strongly question whether independent consultations, a legal requirement of the law, are actually occurring during these so-called medical consultations. Is it not a conflict of interest when Distelmans declares euthanasia cases performed by himself to the Belgian Commission when he is also the chairman and when the members of the Belgian Commission include pro-euthanasia activists like Jacinta De Roeck and Jacqueline Herremans?

Furthermore, there will never be a two-thirds majority to send a case to a judge because the members of the Belgian Commission and its chairman are in a conflict of interest!

It appears that Distelmans has become both the judge and the executioner.

If the euthanasia law in Belgium has taught us anything, it is that in Belgium the euthanasia doctors have been given all of the power in contrast to the patients who are given lethal injections!

Sourced both from Tom Mortier and Alex Schadenberg’s blog

What’s happening? A quick update on euthanasia and assisted suicide

Excerpts from the latest newsletter from Care Not Killing Alliance.

Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill

Independent MSP Margo MacDonald launched her long awaited second attempt to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland, just three years after her last bill was defeated in Holyrood by a massive 85-16 in 2010. 87% of all who made written submissions to the scrutinising committee for that bill were opposed to it, and 64% of individuals and 62% of organisations responding to her own consultation ahead of the current bill also rejected a change in the law.

Doctors' opposition

The MacDonald bill was immediately met by the British Medical Association restating their opposition to legalising assisted suicide, and with healthcare professionals and organisations around the world also restating their opposition to legal changes which would fundamentally alter the practice of medicine, we will watch closely as the Royal College of General Practitioners assesses responses to its consultation, which closed on 9 October.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe

Twenty four hours prior to the unveiling of the Scottish bill, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe was formally launched in the European Parliament. The coalition was first convened at the beginning of 2013, with representatives from the UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and Italy. Last week's programme included a press conference hosted by Finnish MEP Sari Essayah and a public debate at the Goethe Institute. Please visit the EPC Europe website, and follow the coalition on Twitter (@EPCEurope) and Facebook (/EPCEurope).

Around the world

The Belgian legislature is pressing on with efforts to extend its euthanasia law to children as young as 12, statistics released in September showed a 13% rise in Dutch euthanasia and a bill in Quebec surges forward, but legislative efforts in other parts of the Europe are stalling or falling.

• A euthanasia bill for France promised for the end of this year by President Hollande has yet to materialise, having been opposed by the national medical ethics advisory board and rejected in public polling in favour of improved palliative care
• Tasmania's lower house rejected a wide-ranging euthanasia and assisted suicide bill in October while a Labour MP in New Zealand pushing for euthanasia there dropped her bill in September in the face of pressure from her own party.
• Two huge court victories in Canada massively impact the public debate there and have ramifications for other cases around the world.

Falconer Bill

While Lord Falconer's bill - the principles of which were rejected by the House of Lords 148-100 in 2006 and 194-141 in 2009 - awaits second reading, the flaws in its foundation and drafting have become ever clearer. The Labour peer conceded in one interview that his bill effectively places doctors above the law, while two high level think tank reports have stated that the bill fails 'the public safety test' and is 'asking Parliament to sign a blank cheque'. Media consideration of the bill has also caused concerns, with Lord Falconer being given carte blanche to publicise his bill on the BBC's flagship breakfast TV show.

Court of Appeal

We welcomed the decision by all three judges in the Appeal Court comprehensively and completely to reject the Nicklinson and Lamb cases, but were concerned at the 2-1 decision in the 'Martin' case to seek further clarification of the DPP guidelines for so-called 'class two' cases relating to assisted suicide, requiring the involvement of a health professional. The DPP (Keir Starmer, who has since been succeeded by Alison Saunders) immediately announced that he would appeal to the Supreme Court, and leave to appeal was also granted to Paul Lamb and the Nicklinson family.

Liverpool Care Pathway

Following the report, published in July, of Lady Neuberger's review of the LCP - which concluded that the LCP should be phased out 'over the next 6 to 12 months' and replaced by an individual end of life care plan, 'backed up by good practice guidance specific to disease groups' - a Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People(LACDP) was set up under the chairmanship of Dr Bee Wee, National Clinical Director for End of Life Care at NHS England. The Leadership Alliance has begun a public consultation to inform its response to the review, which runs until 6 January 2014.

By sensationally propagating Ray Gosling’s lies as truth the BBC rightly earned its title of euthanasia cheerleader

As reported by the BBC today, Journalist, broadcaster and gay rights activist Ray Gosling has died in hospital in Nottingham.

My sympathy is with Gosling’s family.

However his death revives memories of the time when the BBC’s flagrant promotion of assisted suicide and euthanasia arguably reached its greatest depths.

When the former television journalist confessed on BBC’s Inside Out programme on 15 February 2010 that he had taken a pillow and smothered a gay lover with AIDS who was in ‘terrible, terrible pain’ it very quickly became an international news story.

But it later transpired, after a police investigation involving 32 officers, lasting six months and taking 1,800 hours at a cost of over £45,000 in taxpayers money, that Goslings’ ‘confession’ was simply made up. He did not kill his lover and in fact was not even in the country at the time he died. Furthermore the man did not die in pain.

Gosling was given a 90-day suspended prison sentence at Nottingham Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to wasting police time. The judge in passing sentence branded him as ‘a sheer liar and fantasist’ guilty of ‘creating and maintaining this cruel fabrication’.

It was very clear at the time the story broke that the BBC intended it to have maximum impact.

The Care Not Killing Alliance (CNK) started getting media calls hours before the programme was originally broadcast regarding a ‘new euthanasia story’ involving a ‘prominent BBC employee’ but we were not allowed to know any of the details. Meanwhile every regional and national BBC news outlet was lining up interviews for the ensuing 24 hours.

We later learnt that Gosling had made his original confession to BBC colleagues four months earlier over a ‘beery lunch’. And the programme itself was filmed some months before it was shown and eventually screened just one week before the Director of Public Prosecutions published his prosecution policy for cases of assisted suicide.

Why did the BBC not inform the police during this time or more carefully investigate what was effectively a confession of murder? How many BBC employees actually knew about it? Was this actually a cynical attempt to influence public and judicial opinion at a critical point in time?

These questions were never satisfactorily answered.

In the days that followed the screening, as well as giving a spate of national and regional broadcasts in the UK (including Five Live and BBC breakfast), I was interviewed by a host of international outlets covering the story – including Italian and Spanish newspaper journalists, Russian, Bolivian, Brazilian and Indian television and the BBC world service. The international interest was huge.

The very same week, both the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph carried the story of Lord Carlile, CNK Chairman, writing to the BBC Director General to allege media bias and to accuse the corporation of adopting an ‘incredibly zealous’ ‘campaigning stance’ on assisted suicide.

The BBC has a long history of acting as a cheerleader for euthanasia and assisted suicide, but with the Gosling affair it plumbed its greatest depths.

The corporation cynically planned months ahead to release a story that was total untrue at a time and in a manner guaranteed to maximise its international impact and to influence public policy.

Not only did it fail in its duty to provide fair and impartial broadcasting. It also failed to report a criminal act to the police, opting instead for the sensational proliferation of partisan propaganda and, in this case, downright lies.

And it used our licence fees to do it.