The Bill was published as HLB 4, session 2004-05 (ISBN 01084188390). This volume contains a selection of the 14,000 personal letters and other submissions received by the Committee with regards to their inquiry into the Bill.

Whether the law should permit voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is one of the most vital questions facing all modern societies. Internationally, the main obstacle to legalisation has proved to be the objection that, even if they were morally acceptable in certain 'hard cases', voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could not be effectively controlled; society would slide down a 'slippery slope' to the killing of patients who did not make a free and informed request, or for whom palliative care would have offered an alternative. How cogent is this objection? This book provides the general reader (who need have no expertise in philosophy, law or medicine) with a lucid introduction to this central question in the debate, not least by reviewing the Dutch euthanasia experience. It will interest all in any country whether currently for or against legalisation, who wish to ensure that their opinions are better informed.

TERMINAL SEDATION DURING THE 1990s During the 1990s a discussion took place in scholarly journals concerning a measure within palliative care that had earlier attracted little attention, to wit, the sedation of dying patients. There seem to have been two main reasons why the practice came under debate. On the one hand, some people felt that, when palliative medicine had advanced and methods to control symptoms had improved, it was no longer justified to sedate the patients in a manner that had often been done in the past. The system of 1 terminal sedation had turned into ‘euthanasia in disguise’ or ‘slow euthanasia’. On the other hand, there were people sympathetic to the recently established Dutch system of euthanasia, people who agreed that terminal sedation was euthanasia in disguise, but who felt that, if it is not objectionable to sedate dying patients at their request, then why should it not be permitted for doctors to kill dying patients at 2 request? From these two motives a discussion about terminal sedation gained momentum. The intention behind this anthology is to continue and deepen this discussion. The anthology starts off with a chapter where an influential article from the 1990s has been reprinted.

Infectious diseases are the leading cause of death globally, particularly among children and young adults. The spread of new pathogens and the threat of antimicrobial resistance pose particular challenges in combating these diseases. Major Infectious Diseases identifies feasible, cost-effective packages of interventions and strategies across delivery platforms to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis, malaria, adult febrile illness, viral hepatitis, and neglected tropical diseases. The volume emphasizes the need to effectively address emerging antimicrobial resistance, strengthen health systems, and increase access to care. The attainable goals are to reduce incidence, develop innovative approaches, and optimize existing tools in resource-constrained settings.

The Bill was published as HLB 4 session 2004-05 (ISBN 0108418839).

Locating assisted suicide within the broader medical end-of-life context and drawing on the empirical data available from the increasing number of permissive jurisdictions, this book provides a novel examination of the human rights implications of the prohibition on assisted suicide in England and Wales and beyond. Assisted suicide is a contentious topic and one which has been the subject of judicial and academic debate internationally. The central objective of the book is to approach the question of the ban’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights afresh; freed from the constraints of the existing case law and its erroneous approach to the legal issues and selective reliance on empirical data. The book also examines the compatibility of the ban on assisted suicide with rights which have either been erroneously disregarded or not considered by either the domestic courts or the European Court of Human Rights. Having regard to human rights jurisprudence more broadly, including in the context of abortion, the research and analysis undertaken here demonstrates that the ban on assisted suicide violates the rights of a significant number of individuals to life, to freedom from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and to private life. Such analysis does not depend on a strained or contrived approach to the rights at issue. Rather, the conclusions flow naturally from a coherent, logical application of the established principles governing those rights. While the focus of the book is the Suicide Act 1961, the conclusions reached have implications beyond England and Wales, including for the other devolved jurisdictions and international jurisdictions. Beyond courts and legislators, it will be a valuable resource for students of human rights and medical law, as well as medical and legal practitioners and academics working in human rights and end-of-life care.

Drug overdose, driven largely by overdose related to the use of opioids, is now the leading cause of unintentional injury death in the United States. The ongoing opioid crisis lies at the intersection of two public health challenges: reducing the burden of suffering from pain and containing the rising toll of the harms that can arise from the use of opioid medications. Chronic pain and opioid use disorder both represent complex human conditions affecting millions of Americans and causing untold disability and loss of function. In the context of the growing opioid problem, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched an Opioids Action Plan in early 2016. As part of this plan, the FDA asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to convene a committee to update the state of the science on pain research, care, and education and to identify actions the FDA and others can take to respond to the opioid epidemic, with a particular focus on informing FDA's development of a formal method for incorporating individual and societal considerations into its risk-benefit framework for opioid approval and monitoring.