Royal colleges should not interfere with assisted dying debate He died aged 58 a short time after the judgment from pneumonia Writing in a personal capacity in the British Journal of General Practice Dr Gerada said: "This paper is not however about the pros and cons of assisted dying or about what my view is. Instead it is about the pros and cons of any Royal College or medical body having a collective view, at all. My view should not be more or less valid merely because of who I am, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Similarly the RCGP's "collective" view should not trump the view of the man on the Clapham Omnibus." She said no one college would be able to represent the opinions of its members as the medical profession itself holds divergent views. Dr Gerada added: "It is my view, that all Royal Colleges and Medical, Nursing, and other umbrella medical organisations should join with the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists and take a neutral stance on the issue of assisted dying and should not be publicly opposed to or support any change in legislation that may allow assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. At the heart of the case for neutrality is that the decriminalisation of assisted dying should be a matter for society as a whole to decide, using established parliamentary processes. No particular group within it should have a disproportionate influence on this decision; in particular medical bodies should not impose the beliefs of some of their members on to patients and carers and oppose (or indeed support) a law on assisted dying. The RCN took a neutral position in 2009 made by the council following a consultation of members which showed a 'fairly even' split in opinion. They have since issued guidance to nurses saying that assisted dying remains illegal and offers advice to nurses who are asked about it. Alistair Thompson, of Care not Killing, said: "Clare Gerada is out of stop with the medical profession. This is being debated on a regular basis at the royal colleges and the BMA voted against moves to move to a neutral position at its latest annual representatives meeting. We must get away from this spin that groups like Dignity in Dying call it assisted dying, it is either euthanasia or assisted suicide. This is a huge issue for the medical profession, not just in their relationship with patients but about the very ethics of medicine. The strongest supporters in opposing a change in the law is the Association of Palliative Medicine wh are at the coalfront of treating people at the end of life. Sir Graeme Catto, chairman of Dignity in Dying, agreed with Ms Gerada saying doctors should hold views as individuals but those opinions should not outweigh any of the general public. He said: "I have no doubt that at the moment there are more doctors opposed to a change in the law than in support. This is a decision for society as a whole and should not be swayed by medical professions trade union-style block votes. In Holland the change in the law was very much led by the medical profession but in Oregan in America and in Belgium the medical profession moved with the change and did not lead it. In all countries where there has been a change in the law, afterwards there has been general acceptance and no pressure to change it back. Dr Raymond Tallis, of Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying, also agreed with Ms Gerada and said a position of neutrality by the royal colleges would not be a position of 'indifference', rather it would signal that the medical profession recognised this was a decision for society as a whole. He said: "It is a rather parentalistic for doctors to be telling people what they should and shouldn't do, particularly at the end of life. Also the blanket positions of the royal colleges at present does not reflect that the medical profession itself is divided on this issue. That is not to say that the medical profession does not have a legitimate role to play if the law were changed and should play a key role in setting safeguards. Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: "The Government believes that any change to the law in this emotive and contentious area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide rather than Government policy."