From The Telegraph:
MPs will vote today on one of the most significant and morally complex pieces of legislation to come before Parliament in years.
Kim Leadbeater’s Private Members’ Bill would, if passed, see the legalisation of assisted dying in England and Wales.
The desire to alleviate the suffering of loved ones is a basic and fundamental element of compassion, and many have spoken movingly of their personal experiences. Other proponents of the Bill have advanced principled arguments for people to
exercise their own individual freedom, and be allowed to avoid the kind of suffering that can be the case even with good palliative care.
Indeed, Dame Esther Rantzen, who has campaigned tirelessly and bravely for a change in the law
in the face of her own illness, writes in these pages today about her desire to be able to leave this life on her terms. These arguments carry weight, and are motivated by the best of intentions.
Yet while the arguments for assisted dying are compelling, those against are no less so. Foremost among these objections is a simple and striking observation: when the taboo of assisted dying has been broken, the inexorable trend has been towards greater liberalisation. The Netherlands became the first country to legalise euthanasia 20 years ago, limiting access to adults in unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. The result has been the medically induced deaths of adults with anorexia and depression, and last year the government announced its intention to change the law to permit euthanasia for children from the age of one.
In Canada, laws which were intended only for the terminally ill have slowly expanded to encompass those with chronic health conditions, and efforts are under way to
extend eligibility to the mentally ill. Patients have chosen to die because suitable housing was unavailable or because they were living in poverty. Others have been offered assisted dying to deal with hearing loss or in lieu of the installation of a stairlift in their home.
As Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary,
has argued, the risk that our human rights laws would see a similar expansion in eligibility cannot be dismissed lightly. Even when safeguards elsewhere have stood firm on paper, they have not always done so in practice; Ontario’s chief coroner has recorded 428 cases of doctors breaching guidelines in his province, and a “pattern of non-compliance” among medical practitioners.
While Britain is not Canada or Holland, it is also not immune to the institutional incentives and political pressures that led to the expansion of assisted dying in these countries, or to the failure of individuals and organisations to abide by the rules.
As Mr Streeting has stated, there is the potential for a “
chilling slippery slope” if people “opt for assisted dying because they think they’re saving someone somewhere money, whether that’s relatives or the NHS”. As resource pressures on the health service mount, it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which patients believe they are doing the moral thing in opting to die rather than to continue to receive treatment. This view is shared by the Bishop of London, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, and the Chief Rabbi, who have expressed concerns that a “right to die” could end with people feeling “a duty to die”.
Others have highlighted the risk that the law is abused. Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, has stated that the greatest risk with the Bill is “the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves”, while Suella Braverman and Sadiq Khan have expressed concerns that some could find themselves
coerced into opting for assisted dying despite attempts in the Bill to prevent this.
Ms Leadbeater has correctly pointed out that many may not wish to be a burden on their loved ones, and that this could be a “legitimate reason” for a person to desire assisted dying. However, whether or not a dying person is a “burden” is not a decision that is theirs alone to make; as Gordon Brown has noted, the final days he and his wife spent with his newborn daughter were “
among the most precious” of their lives. There will be many others who feel similarly about their final days and weeks with an ill loved one.
There are issues, too, with the practicalities of the Bill. Mr Streeting has stated that resources spent on assisted dying would be taken from other areas of the NHS, while Dame Caroline Swift, the retired High Court judge, has argued that it would place real pressure on an already creaking court system. MPs, for their part, are concerned that insufficient parliamentary time will be available to scrutinise the Bill.
The legalisation of assisted dying would be a sea change for Britain. It would mark a fundamental shift in the relationship between doctor and patient, state and citizen, which must be
navigated with the utmost care. Despite its admirable intentions, this Bill does not appear sufficient to address the objections raised against it, and it is the view of this paper that MPs should vote against it.
As Gordon Brown has argued, all in this debate share “a common concern” and “genuine compassion”. It would be to the benefit of all if this were channelled into offering better palliative care, ending the postcode lottery in favour of a unified and well-funded system able to offer the dying the dignified and compassionate treatment that they deserve, no matter where they are.