SAVES is not affiliated with Exit International / Dr Philip Nitschke and opposes the public availability of a 'peaceful pill'.

The World Medical Association and Voluntary Euthanasia

Most medical associations continue to oppose voluntary euthanasia by adopting the 1987 World Medical Association statement:

Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient's own request, or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness.

Cold comfort indeed, if you are facing a miserable dying process by natural means and even worse if your condition is not terminal but your suffering intolerable, with no prospect of relief except in death. In this regard the World Medical Association shows extraordinary lack of consistency with its 1970 statement on abortion (amended 1983) which is set out below.

Relevant information is highlighted and followed by a bracketed amendment consistent with the practice of voluntary euthanasia. Abortion and voluntary euthanasia are both moral issues over which there is a diversity of views within both the medical profession and the general public. The adoption of a neutral stance on voluntary euthanasia by professional bodies would acknowledge and respect this diversity.

World Medical Association statement on therapeutic abortion - October 1983

1. The first moral principle imposed on the physician is respect for human life from its beginning. (until its end.)

2. Circumstances which bring the vital interests of a mother into conflict with the vital interests of her unborn child create a dilemma, and raise the question of whether or not the pregnancy should be deliberately terminated.

(Circumstances which bring the preservation of the life of a patient into conflict with the relief of suffering create a dilemma, and raise the question whether or not the life should be deliberately terminated if the patient so wishes.)

3. Diversity of response to this situation results from the diversity of attitudes towards the life of the unborn child. This is a matter of individual conviction and conscience, which must be respected. (an individual)

4. It is not the role of the medical profession to determine the attitudes and rules of any particular state or community, in this matter, but it is our duty both to ensure the protection of our patients and to safeguard the rights of the physician within society. (no change)

5.Therefore, where the law allows therapeutic abortion to be performed, the procedure should be performed by a physician competent to do so, and in a manner approved by the appropriate authority. (voluntary euthanasia)

6. If the physician considers that his convictions do not allow him to perform an abortion, he may withdraw while ensuring the continuity of medical care by a qualified colleague.

(If the physician considers that his convictions do not allow him to perform voluntary euthanasia, he may withdraw while offering the patient alternative medical care by a qualified colleague if the patient so wishes.)

7.This statement, while endorsed by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association, is not to be regarded as binding on any individual member association unless it is adopted by that member association. (no change)

The position adopted by the AMA concerning voluntary euthanasia is not based upon a survey of its members. If both the World and Australian Medical Associations can take a neutral stance on abortion and thus acknowledge it to be a matter of conscience for patient and doctor, why can they not do the same for voluntary euthanasia?

SAVES has written to the federal and state presidents of the AMA highlighting the inconsistency of its stance and urging a position of neutrality to be adopted. Medical practitioners, who are AMA members are also urged to do so.

(This article is reproduced from the SAVES Collection, first issued March 1995)

13 March 2001