In response

Despite a large amount of information in Clinical Medicine, College Commentary and Newsletter, Maurice Buchalter does not appreciate the different roles of the RCP's Committee for Ethical Issues in Medicine (CEIM), College Council, senior College officers or the (independent) editor of Clinical Medicine in RCP debates around euthanasia. Any ‘editorial comment’ in the recent analysis¹ of 2,143 free-text comments from the 2006 consultation is mine, not the CEIM's or RCP officers'. A decision to change the law – not a specific question about Lord Joffe's Third Bill, which was not about euthanasia anyway – is necessarily a binary decision, whatever the complexities of the debate. As regards provision of commentary, several pieces have directly^1–4 or indirectly⁵ informed Fellows and Members on these issues.

We have striven throughout to ensure that both minority and majority views have been encouraged and respected. As the post-consultation statement says, ‘Council acknowledges that a significant minority of its Fellowship and Collegiate Membership support a change in the law … encouraging its Fellows and Members in their diversity of views [emphasis added by author] to play an informed role in continuing debate’. As I wrote elsewhere, a 26% minority view is important: ^‘No triumphalism here. The RCP has tried to avoid the elective dictatorship we see in political life. Nowhere is this more important than in ethical issues where division can be sincere, well argued and deeply felt’.⁶

I'm sorry Maurice Buchalter didn't like the consultation outcome but his view of opponents unfairly imposing their will while supporters don't is naive. Regardless of his personal position, surely he can acknowledge that opponents of euthanasia – or animal experimentation or abortion or a host of other issues – think it is wrong and should not be permitted in our society. It's about ethics, not etiquette or personal taste.

Finally, I agree with him that, with a return rate of around 35%, most Fellows and Members are probably opposed. As Council's statement says, ‘in view of the strong majority view … a reasonable opinion of the overall opinion of its Fellowship and Collegiate Membership can be drawn’. Given the sustained press campaign since then it may, of course, have changed.

• © 2009 Royal College of Physicians