We are also often asked about our stance on various bills, policies, issues and court cases: here is an at-a-glance guide. (You can see our general position and policy here.)
We have intervened both at the High Court (July 2017) and Court of Appeal (May 2018) in the case of Noel Conway. Mr Conway, a 67-year old man with Motor Neurone Disease, aided by Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society), is challenging the Suicide Act in the courts. Mr Conway's case is similar to that of Tony Nicklinson; the difference, it is argued, is that Mr Conway's conditional is terminal. The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's ruling against Mr Conway's application in June 2018, and on 27 November 2018, the Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal, bringing the case to an end.
We opposed Rob Marris's ballot bill, announced on 9 June 2015 and introduced in the House on 24 June. The Assisted Dying (No 2) Bill largely replicated that of Lord Falconer, and was drafted by Dignity in Dying (the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society). After intense debate, MPs rejected the bill 330-118 on 11 September 2015.
We opposed Lord Falconer's 2013 Assisted Dying Bill (subsequently revived in 2014 and 2015) based on the controversial findings of the Falconer Commission (see below). We also opposed his amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill which attempted to decriminalise assisting suicide trips abroad and was defeated by 194-151 in 2009.
We opposed Margo MacDonald's Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill, launched in November 2013 and talet taken up following Ms MacDonald's death by Patrick Harvie MSP. We also opposed her earlier End of Life Assistance (Scotland) bill which sought to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia and was overwhelmingly voted down by 85-16 by the Scottish Parliament in December 2010, and following a sustained campaign led by CNK, the more recent bill was also defeated, by 82-36.
We opposed the late Tony Nicklinson's application for any doctor ending his life not to face prosecution, and had intervener status in his case, later taken up by Paul Lamb. These applications were turned down, first by the High Court and later by the Court of Appeal. We also intervened in the case of 'Martin', who seeks to challenge the law on suicide, and we oppose any further guidance being given by the Director of Public Prosecutions (see below). We intervened once more when his and the Nicklinson/Lamb appeals went before the Supreme Court in December 2013 the appeals of Nicklinson/Lamb and 'Martin' were dismissed and that of the DPP upheld on 25 June 2014.
We believe Lord Falconer's so-called 'independent commission' on 'assisted dying' was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency and we refused to give evidence to it.
We opposed Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill which sought to legalise assisted suicide and was defeated by 148-100 at second reading in May 2006.
We supported Baroness Ilora Finlay's Palliative Care Bill, which was passed by the House of Lords in 2007 before the end of the Parliamentary year prevented progress in the Commons.
We believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions' policy on prosecution for assisted suicide is flawed regarding acts claiming to be 'wholly motivated by compassion.' We do not think it is necessarily in the public interest to prosecute all cases of assisted suicide but do believe that the current law needs to be strongly upheld in order to provide a powerful deterrent effect.
We do not believe that the law on murder requires amendment. We believe there is already flexibility in the justice system to deal with hard cases and oppose any lessening of penalties for so-called compassionate killing.
We consider the Liverpool Care Pathway - which was designed to bring the high standard of integrated care for dying patients already the norm in hospices to hospitals and care homes - to be a useful clinical tool which has benefited many thousands of patients. Like all care protocols, however, it must only be by used by properly trained staff with the proper clinical indications, and we have engaged fully with the review process initiated to respond to significant failings in the Pathway's application.
We have repeatedly opposed euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke's entry to Britain believing that his actions are in breach of the Suicide Act and constitute a risk to vulnerable people.
We support the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the British Geriatric Society in their opposition to the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
We support Disability Rights UK, Scope, UKDPC and Not Dead Yet UK in opposition to the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. We also support the Resistance Campaign on behalf of disabled people.
We encourage individuals to consider provisions for the end of life, but while recognising their legality under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 oppose binding advance refusals for artificial nutrition and hydration.