Email your comments

At the Harrogate conference, I attended the lively afternoon debate on assisted dying.

It would seem that Lord Joffe’s Bill to legalise assisted suicide of terminally ill patients who choose to end their suffering will be reintroduced into the House of Lords in 2007. The debate proved interesting, though hardly fair, as one team seemed to be a player down, and matched against a pair of intellectual super-heavyweights. Perhaps this didn’t matter as it is arguable, on an issue which attracts such strong opinion on either side, whether a debate changes anybody’s mind. In the end the result appeared to be an honourable draw, but I have to say I felt distinctly uncomfortable throughout at some of the arguments presented and the potential implications of the process. For example, is the withholding of active treatment from patients who are already terminally ill to allow nature to take its course really the same as helping people to actively terminate their own life? Another point concerns the relief of unbearable suffering whether it be in the form of pain, anguish, sickness or increasing dependence on others; fine in theory but the degree of suffering is unique to the individual and their circumstances and may be recognised in other chronic disease situations which are not immediately terminal. The issue of choice was also invoked - whether people with incurable illness should have the right to choose the time of their passing when suffering from incurable illness. My view of this is coloured by television images of patients travelling to places where assisted dying is permissible who do not seem to be imminently terminal at first sight. One hopes the diagnosis of their condition is correct. Although the “slippery slope“ argument was played down - that is the notion that vulnerable people losing independence might feel morally obliged to seek assisted death to avoid becoming a burden on others - somebody needs to stand up and protect vulnerable people from any such pressure.

Now, unlike the distinguished speakers I am no moral philosopher - more of a street philosopher, and I have to say I don’t like the tenor of this debate. I came into medicine to treat illness and ease suffering, not to end life at someone else’s behest. Incidentally, have you noticed the steady trickle of newspaper reports of doctors being charged with manslaughter over the death of a patient? If this Bill becomes law on a wave of idealism, how long before some dissenting family member disputes the grounds for assisted suicide and reports a case to the police? Far fetched? How about the case of a surgeon in my region charged with manslaughter [charges now dropped, thankfully] over his management of a patient with a self inflicted chest wound who intended to commit suicide? I know there would be safeguards and we must not over-react but for me this is one patient choice too far and doctors need to be protected from the pressure that would inevitably occur, to assist people to commit suicide.

The issue of euthanasia keeps raising its, for me, ugly head and it will do so again. We would like to hear from people with opinions on both sides of the fence. Please contact me.

Have your say
For a number of years since the National Councils were established, the Society has run a National Councils study day held on a rotating basis around the home countries, with programmes which encompass educational content and strategic debate. The events became expensive to stage and attendance dwindled due to work and financial pressures. However, the UKMC have recently approved a proposal to replace these events with a more inclusive session held at the Autumn conference, in parallel with special interest group meetings, at which members can have the opportunity to debate issues which affect the Society and to have a say in how we should go forward. The purpose of this item therefore, is to raise awareness that the session will be held next year, to invite you all to attend, and also to seek suggestions for topics to be discussed. So far we have:

• Are we a campaigning organisation?
• Are we truly mult-iprofessional in our outlook?
• How do we involve younger members in our activities?
• How do we strengthen the Regional structure in England?

If you have any suggestions please contact me at the email address above.

Is it time to move on from Marjory Warren?
Now, I know I am risking a lightning strike but I just wanted to pose this question. Let me explain. I have been a member of the BGS for over 20 years and I have lost count of the number of admittedly entertaining and informative keynote lectures at our conferences which seem to have a broad theme of “Whither geriatrics?”,”Whither Marjory Warren?”, the history of geriatric medicine, and the Giants of Geriatric medicine. While I think it’s absolutely right to remember the pioneering work done by those who established our speciality, but it was 60 years ago and I question the relevance of this retrospection to the up and coming generation of geriatricians and other health professionals interested in the health care of older people. I feel that maybe we should regard Marjory Warren in the same way that the Promenaders at the annual series of BBC promenade concerts regard Sir Henry Wood - a figure to be remembered annually - maybe by placing a laurel wreath over a bust as it were, but overseeing an event that promotes new ideas and concepts and embraces the young. A disrespectful step too far? You decide.

I don’t want to speak for long but…
As we welcome Peter Crome as the next holder of the Presidential Chain and the latest photograph on the wall at Marjory Warren House, we reluctantly say goodbye and bon voyage to Jerry Playfer. On behalf of all our members I would like to thank Jerry for his enormous contributions to the life of the Society in a variety of roles over the years. Personally, I always enjoy listening to his views on Parkinson’s Disease and must record my appreciation for the warmth with which he welcomed me into this role, and the support he offered at times of need. One lasting legacy will be the new catch phrase he invented which forms the header to this paragraph. Thank you, Jerry and have a happy retirement.

Final Word - Amazing things heard at the Harrogate conference

• Bev Castleton is the most available consultant in London
• Jackie Morris didn’t start to speak until she was three and a half years old
• Prof Paul Corris, introduced as Prof P Collins must have been something In the Air Tonight
• Phil Birschel has finally recovered from Post Gateshead Stress Disorder to complete his MD
• Jackie M. to yours truly - “How many Nobel Prize winners have you met, Dave?” “Er…..none, but I once met Chris Waddle.”
  

David Beaumont