That this House notes with concern the cases highlighted at the British Medical Association conference of inappropriate use of not for resuscitation orders; is alarmed at reports that junior doctors feel cajoled and coerced into making NFR orders; notes that this is in clear breach of the guidelines that make clear the leading role of consultants in such decisions and the requirement to consult the patient and their family; and calls on the Secretary of State for Health to take urgent steps to ensure compliance with the guidelines and launch an information campaign to inform patients of their rights.

That this House notes with concern the cases highlighted at the British Medical Association conference of inappropriate use of not for resuscitation orders; is alarmed at reports that junior doctors feel cajoled and coerced into making NFR orders; notes that this is in clear breach of the guidelines that make...

That this House notes with concern the growing number of reported cases of inappropriate use of not for resuscitation (NFR) orders; believes that there is a gap between guidelines and practice which leaves patients and family members uninvolved in the decision to mark a patient's records 'NFR'; notes that research reported in the British Medical Journal found that two out of three patients with NFRs were not involved in the decision and that patients with NFRs were 30 times more likely to die; and calls on the Government to take urgent action to stamp out this immoral practice and issue clear instructions to the NHS on the use of not for resuscitation orders.

That this House notes with concern the growing number of reported cases of inappropriate use of not for resuscitation (NFR) orders; believes that there is a gap between guidelines and practice which leaves patients and family members uninvolved in the decision to mark a patient's records 'NFR'; notes that research...

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...

That this House notes that physician-assisted-suicide advocate, Professor Sheila McLean, stated in April 1996 in the Voluntary Euthanasia Society Scotland Newsletter that the routes taken by courts in judgments allowing the withdrawal of treatment, including food and fluid, to end the lives of those in a persistent vegetative state and other patients 'endorse a form of non-voluntary euthanasia'; notes that she was a member of the drafting committee of the British Medical Association Guidelines on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment which advocates extending the withdrawal of tube feeding to a range of patients who are not in PVS and who are not dying; regrets that the Government's report, Making Decisions, endorses much of the BMA guidelines, which, if adopted, would serve to consolidate further the practice of medical killing by omission; further notes that in Scotland, the Deputy Minister for Community Care, Iain Gray, has said that any doctor who follows the BMA guidelines on non-PVS patients such as those who have suffered a stroke would be open to criminal prosecution; welcomes the Minister's statement that the Incapable Adults (Scotland) Bill 'makes no distinction between different means of delivering food and water'; further welcomes the Minister's clarification that 'nothing in the Bill will permit a patient to be denied basic care, or to be starved, dehydrated or otherwise mistreated'; and calls on the Government to adopt a similar position and withdraw its opposition to the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill and to honour its pledges to oppose euthanasia.

That this House notes that physician-assisted-suicide advocate, Professor Sheila McLean, stated in April 1996 in the Voluntary Euthanasia Society Scotland Newsletter that the routes taken by courts in judgments allowing the withdrawal of treatment, including food and fluid, to end the lives of those in a persistent vegetative state and...