EXCLUSIVE A GP suspended for six months after prescribing sleeping pills to an elderly patient so she could end her life said yesterday his views had changed �considerably� and he now accepted there was �no place� for physician-assisted suicide in medical practice.
A GP suspended for six months after prescribing sleeping pills to an elderly patient so she could end her life said yesterday his views had changed "considerably" and he now accepted there was "no place" for physician-assisted suicide in medical practice.
In a dramatic turnaround, Dr Iain Kerr, who is based in Clarkston, Glasgow, told the panel of the General Medical Council hearing a review of his case: "I do now see that acting in a way which I did ... was unacceptable."
He said the instance 11 years ago when he gave the 87-year-old woman sodium amytal to enable her to take her own life was a "unique situation" and he would not do the same again.
When asked by Boyd Morwood, counsel for the GMC, to explain his view of physician-assisted suicide, Dr Kerr replied: "My personal view is that there is no place for it in medical practice."
He added: "This whole experience has made me focus more clearly on the issues.
"I appreciate that it is not acceptable for an individual doctor, no matter how well-intentioned, to act in these sort of circumstances as an individual without the benefit of some formal process governing any sort of activity like this.
"I realise that if there is to be any form of physician-assisted suicide it will have to be within a proper legal framework and that there is no place for a practitioner to become so empathic with the patient that he may be tempted to go contrary to the current advice on physician-assisted suicide."
Dr Kerr, 62, had his registration to practise medicine temporarily withdrawn in July last year after he appeared before a General Medical Council fitness to practise panel.
With his suspension due to end next month, a separate GMC panel is now deciding whether Dr Kerr's fitness to practise is still impaired. If they decide it is, the panel could decide to extend the doctor's suspension for up to 12 months, or allow him to return to work with certain conditions imposed.
The panel had heard that in 1998 Dr Kerr prescribed sodium amytal to the woman, known as Patient A, to enable her to take her own life. The woman did not use the tablets and destroyed them some years later.
In 2005 he visited her after she took an overdose of temazepam in a failed suicide bid but he did not admit her to hospital. He later prescribed her more temazepam and she died within a fortnight of intoxification from this and other drugs.
The panel said the GP, a former member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Scotland, had "made a serious misjudgment and embarked on a potentially criminal act". It also criticised his failure to keep adequate records when he prescribed sodium amytal to five other patients.
The case raised further questions about how society handles one of the last taboos, and came amid increased public support for some forms of assisted suicide.
Figures from the British Social Attitudes Survey found 80% of people supported euthanasia by a doctor, while physician-assisted suicide was supported by 60%.
Margo MacDonald MSP has also launched a consultation on legalising assisted suicide, saying that helping someone to die could be "the last caring act" a doctor carries out for their patient.
Dr Kerr found himself at the centre of the debate after he admitted prescribing sodium amytal to Patient A, who was said to be afraid of becoming a burden on her family.
Dr Kerr told the panel yesterday he prescribed the drugs to Patient A in 1998, "which is quite a long time ago, in terms of medical practice and my approach to these matters. I certainly would not undertake any action like that under any circumstances in the future".
Michael Mylonas, counsel for Dr Kerr, asked what his actions would be if another patient expressed their desire to end their life. The GP replied: "That would depend on the circumstances of a particular case but I'm absolutely certain that I would not do anything that could be construed as assisting suicide. I would mobilise all the methods of support in the community and hospital sector that I could and do the best for the patient in that respect.
"I certainly would not countenance any involvement in what might be thought to be assisted suicide."
Mr Mylonas said there may be concern that because Dr Kerr's case had been in the spotlight, more patients may approach him to discuss the possibility of assisted suicide.
Dr Kerr said: "I would be quite comfortable explaining that my views have changed, partly because this whole experience of being before the GMC has forced me to re-evaluate my actions.
"No-one knows what the future holds but I am confident I would be able to resist any temptation."
Cross-examining Dr Kerr, Mr Morwood asked whether his use of the word "temptation" indicated he still believed in physician-assisted suicide.
Dr Kerr replied: "I think that refers to what I would describe as my previously held views that I did in fact feel sympathetic to people who were in a situation where they felt life was intolerable.
"I do now see that acting in a way which I did ... was unacceptable."
The panel is expected to reach its decision today.
