AGM again

On the 4th June I mentioned attending the 'Dignity in Dying' AGM in London, from which I now share some stuff.

One speaker, himself a psychiatrist whose speaker notes suggest he is also a doctor by training, spoke of the opposition of much of the medical profession to assisted suicide, the legalisation of which is the objective of the Dignity in Dying campaign. He first made the points that the opposition is focused by their professional organisations, in particular the BMA, and that it was unclear how representative this central stance was of the views of doctors at large. But he went on to say that it was his impression that this opposition, such as it was, grew stronger as one got nearer the coal face. Doctors in general were fairly relaxed about assisted suicide, oncologists (as an example of a specialism which has a lot to do with dying) rather less so and palliative care doctors were firmly against. I find it odd that those whom one might think were in a good position to know, those whose views will carry weight in the debate, are so against.

But an oddity which leads me to agree with the campaign's focus on choice: I should have the right to chose and this right to chose is not a medical matter. It is not for doctors - or indeed anyone else - to deny me that human right. So neutrality would be a better place for the BMA to be. (Incidentally, looking at their web site - http://bma.org.uk/ - it is clear that as an organisation they are against. It is less clear how well that clearly articulated position reflects the current views of their members).

Another speaker talked of 82% of the population being in favour of changing the law to allow assisted suicide for the dying, a figure which, as a former statistician, struck me as inappropriately precise. I did not get the chance to ask where it came from, so I tried asking google when I got back home and turned up a survey by the YouGov people. They said that 72% wanted the proposed bill, 69% thought that anyone with a terminal illness should be included (not very consistent with the first figure) and 46% thought than anyone in incurable pain should be included. These results appeared to come from a portmanteau survey which I imagine is conducted on a regular basis but with shifting content. Perhaps some core content about central government and voting intention and then some shifting content reflecting issues of the day, including here some rather banal sporting issues. This particular survey included 1,760 adults and was taken in June 2012.

A quick look at the YouGov web site - https://yougov.co.uk/ - suggests that the surveys are conducted online from a pool of self-selected volunteers and one might therefore worry about the representativeness of such surveys. But such statistical nit-picking (for which, despite having once been a statistician, I am not qualified) aside, it seems likely that a clear majority of the population support change. I shall carry on poking to try and find out where the 82% came from.

I came away - at half time as I tend to nod off in the afternoons of all day meetings - with some confidence that things were on the move; that the law would be changed and it was just a question of when. And that any money that I could spare these people would be well spent.

My first venture in the campaigning world since CND and the Vietnam war.

PS: I have now joined the YouGov world. I shall report in due course.