I'm pleased that the Commons have voted in favour of Assisted Dying. The majority was a slim one, 330-275, which reflects the strength of arguments on both sides.
To my mind the strongest argument in favour is that, in both Oregon and Australia, where assisted death has been legal for some years, now 66% of those who ask for and receive the "end it all" package don't actually use it. Clearly it becomes an "insurance." it could actually improve palliative care and the quality of life in the last few days since it empowers the individual with the knowledge that if things get "too much, she or he is in charge and can put an end to agonies and indignities which are no longer tolerable.
The arguments against carry weight, not least the additional demands on the medical and legal services. It is not flippant to point our that it is difficult enough for the "poorly but not actually at death's door" to gain the services of just one doctor, never mind two, and judges are already facing a backlog of cases in which accused and victims experiencing waiting times measured in years rather than months.
I am not too much moved by the argument that greedy relatives might coerce someone into ending their life in order to get their hands on the potential inheritance. Surely they could wait six months? More serious is the possibility that the patients with not long to live might pressure themselves into thinking they are "a burden" and so end their lives prematurely. An Australian contact assures me there is little evidence of either of these situations "Down Under," but how would they know?
These and other issues will be thoroughly thrashed out in the Committee Stage, Report Stage and Third Reading of the bill, and then all over again in the House of Lords
Opponents of the bill express concern around the "slippery slope" argument: that this first step could open up the ;possibility of voluntary euthanasia in vastly extended circumstances. There is little evidence that this has happened in other countries, but one area to which I should like to see it extended is to conditions such as motor neurone disease (MID) where the body degenerates and the mind remains intact. Such a condition could become intolerable well before the last six months of "life" are diagnosed.
Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor of this bill, is my MP (no longer for Batley and Spen, but now Spen Valley.) If the bill becomes law she will be remembered in history one of the great social reformers, along with Lloyd George, Sydney Silverman, David Steel and Roy Jenkins. A fitting memorial for her murdered sister Jo cox.
I'm pleased that the Commons have voted in favour of Assisted Dying.
ReplyDeleteI am sickened. How can a government have a 'suicide prevention strategy' and at the same time run a suicide-on-demand service, even for only a few people? How can we try to tell people that they should not take their own lives while at the same time teling others that if they feel they are a burden they should be free to have the state kill them?
I am not too much moved by the argument that greedy relatives might coerce someone into ending their life in order to get their hands on the potential inheritance. Surely they could wait six months?
The issue isn't how long they might have to wait, it's how much of the inheritance might be spent in those six months providing a good standard of care for their dying relative. If your relative is in a nursing home costing £1,500 a week then convincing them to commit suicide six months sooner than they would otherwise have died nets you an extra £36,000.
Plus a large proportion — possibly the majority — of those whom doctors give six months or less to live end up living for longer than six months, in some cases years or even decades longer. Your given-six-months-to-live father might easily hang on for a year: that's £72,000 down the drain. Why not just gently suggest to him that there's no point in him spending any more time in pain?
They won't think of that as what they are doing of course. They'll think that they are just being kind and, after all, hasn't Dad had a good life and isn't it awful to see him suffering?
Sick. Sick. Sick.
These and other issues will be thoroughly thrashed out in the Committee Stage, Report Stage and Third Reading of the bill, and then all over again in the House of Lords
No, they won't. Private members' bills, unlike government bills, get a shortened committee stage and the committees are hand-picked by the bill's proposed, so will be made up entirely of people who support the legislation. There will be no scrutiny there. And by convention the House of Lords doesn't amend private member's bills, so there'll be no scrutiny there either.
There is little evidence that this has happened in other countries,
On the contrary such expansion has happened in every country where it has been introduced. Canada and the Netherlands most famously, but even in Oregon, which is what proponents of the bill like to point to, while the wording of the legislation has not been expanded, the interpretation has been loosened. It will be like the Abortion Act: still in this country, de jure abortion is supposed to only be for cases where the health of the mother is at risk, but de facto we have abortion on demand because it is always possible to find a doctor who will say that this is the case. The same will happen with assisted suicide: a network of doctors who can be relied upon to always sign the forms will spring up, and of course the judicial oversight will be a mere rubber-stamp as judges have neither the time nor the qualifications to look into individual cases.
but one area to which I should like to see it extended is to conditions such as motor neurone disease (MID) where the body degenerates and the mind remains intact. Such a condition could become intolerable well before the last six months of "life" are diagnosed.
Oh, come on. Literally you write 'I see no evidence that this will be a slippery slope but here's how I want go go farther down the slope'. Do you even re-read these?
Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor of this bill, is my MP
Oh, you live there? Do you not think her time would have been better spent representing, say, the schoolteacher who is still in hiding after he showed a cartoon of Mohammed during a lesson?
If the bill becomes law she will be remembered in history one of the great social reformers, along with Lloyd George, Sydney Silverman, David Steel and Roy Jenkins.
She will do down in history as having killed more old people than Harold Shipman.
Well, as I said , there is strength in the arguments on both sides. We shall see.
ReplyDeleteWe shall see.
DeleteAnd in the meantime thousands will be killed by the state. A state whose relationship with its citizens will have fundamentally changed.
I think that I am more impressed by these objections to the Bill https://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2024/11/some-thoughts-on-assisted-dying-bill.html than by the anonymous commenter above.
ReplyDeleteThank-you Laurence Cox for that suggestion. I have read the article and agree that the author makes some valuable points, in particular with regard to the involvement of coroners and professionals other than medical doctors. I gather that there is a different proposal going through the Scottish parliament. It would be a good idea if both Acts (if they reach that stage) include a provision that their operation and effectiveness should be formally examined after, say, three years, and their outcomes compared.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a good idea if both Acts (if they reach that stage) include a provision that their operation and effectiveness should be formally examined after, say, three years, and their outcomes compared.
DeleteAll new laws should have sunset clauses long enough so that they automatically cease to apply unless the next Parliament actively decides to renew them.