Many palliative care patients would prefer to receive care, and to die, at home. Despite this many die in institutions. In response to this, politicians and charities have adopted policies aimed at increasing the opportunities for care and death at home. The need to discuss plans for discharge with most inpatients reinforces expectations of a choice of place of care. However, many palliative patients do not have a choice of care at home. This article will explore the circumstances in which patients are unable to choose home care and consider changes in clinical practice that can help to maximise choice. We shall argue that there is a distinction between the preferences of patients and the choices actually available to them. In attempting to make this distinction we advocate consideration of the balance between the ethical principles relevant to each case.

The Assisted Dying for the Terminally III Bill proposed to legalise both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for those with a terminal illness in the UK. A House of Lords Select Committee was convened to scrutinise this Bill and has recently published its report, which will be debated in Parliament on October 10th 2005. The written and oral evidence submitted to the Select Committee represented a wide range of views on 'assisted dying'. Much of the evidence from those countries which have legalised euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide (The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Oregon, USA) dealt with the practicalities of ending life, and the legal procedures and safeguards instigated in these countries. All the written and oral evidence in the public domain was scrutinised by the authors whilst the Select Committee was sitting. We have extracted those themes relevant to specialist palliative care practice and present them in this paper. We hope that this will provide a useful resource to inform the forthcoming public debate on assisted dying. The evidence of harms inherent in making such a change in the law, as presented to the Select Committee, has moved all three authors to oppose a change in the law.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract