Opponents of the present law, based on the double effect doctrine, claim it leaves doctors vulnerable and confused about what is permissible. But it does not. The intention to relieve suffering is clearly distinct from the intention to kill. The doctrine of double effect has the virtue of allowing doctors to bring life to a peaceful and dignified end without jeopardising the patients' trust. We now need to put that principle into practice, honestly and openly, and we need to give better palliative care than Dr Moor did.
Most people can see no morally significant difference between the two, but some say they can.
The British Medical Association is currently committed to holding a conference 'to establish a consensus' on PAS and has to announce the arrangements for that conference at this July's Annual Representative Meeting. At its ARM in 1997 it 'overwhelmingly' rejected voluntary euthanasia. It is unlikely the BMA can be persuaded to endorse PAS, but the arrangements for that conference are clearly of great significance . . . Ironically that ruling had the effect of putting the decision back to the State of Oregon. In November 1997 its citizens voted 60-40 for PAS, and despite some further challenges, a double figure number of patients have now been helped to die under the new law.