November 29th saw the Terminally Ill Adults Bill pass its first major development not only in the House of Commons but also wider society. Prior to this there have been concerns regarding the growing lack of social sentiment for the elderly community. While proponents assert that compassion for and dignity to the terminally ill are maximised solely through this bill, this claim is flawed and does not truly reflect the social and emotional responsibilities that we as a society should have towards the ill elderly. Legalising assisted dying poses moral, practical, and societal risks that cannot be neglected. Below, I address key concerns, demonstrating why this bill should not become law.
The Vulnerability of the Individual
The most recent bill aims to target worries of coercion and medical procedure, the obvious motivation being to protect the vulnerable; the reforms at hand are not sufficient in doing so. Initially the “intent to die” aspect is vague and ambiguous, neglecting the reality of the motivations behind assisted dying being misguided, particularly those of the individual. Undoubtedly, terminal illness comes with a series of mental struggles such as psychological stress and depression, which could impede decision-making. In medical terms, the patient does not have the capacity to undergo rational decision-making and thereby reach a confident conclusion.
Additionally, the bill (as well as any existing criteria) doesn’t account for the effects of implicit pressure from family members. A common trend amongst the ill is feeling burdensome and like an obstruction to their loved ones' happiness. The bill makes no mention of this, though it is crucial in eliminating the subtle coercion that arises from societal and familial attitudes towards the ill.
Assisted dying in practice risks favouring convenience over choice, fed by an inadequate system of support for those in their final months.
Flawed Safeguards
The bill attempts to include measures of practicality and procedure, namely evaluations by two doctors and a High Court judge. These reforms are not only self-problematic but nigh impossible in the contemporary system. The bill becomes self-problematic in its procedural policy regarding the doctors involved. The nature of the doctors is not properly defined, thus compromising the impartiality of the doctors at hand. More generally, doctors may adopt a convenience bias, conscious or unconscious. More specifically, they could come from the same hospital or be influenced by other doctors who are unrelated in any one case.
Furthermore, the process may inadvertently increase patient suffering. The proposed process is inherently lengthy and costly. The bill risks not only prolonging a patient’s anguish from the anticipation or the worsening of mental infirmity, but also offering false hope to an already vulnerable individual, which may trigger suicide or further self-harm.
Inequality Is Not Resolved
There is a present argument that a new legal framework will address the current inequality in access to assisted dying. Not only does this argument fail to provide a moral justification for the practice, but it also takes the presence of a definitive moral argument as a given. It assumes that assisted dying is inherently right and thus should be applied across society, simply because it is practised by a few. The unequal opportunity to commit a crime cannot be rationale for legalising the crime. Meanwhile, there is no mention of any philosophical proposition for why euthanasia is morally permissible. In saying this, I acknowledge the need to propose an actual solution, the top contender being reforming palliative care to reduce demand.
The Slippery Slope Is Real
The most compelling argument on my journey of research into assisted dying is the dangerous precedent it sets. The law will not exist in isolation. By creating jurisdictions around legalising death, you hazard warping social attitudes. Regarding euthanasia, the legalisation would send a message to society that some lives are worth living more than others and that there is always the option of death. This can lead to a future where the bill has poisoned social sentiment surrounding the ill and elderly. Conversely, we should prioritise policies that allow for a stronger empathetic connection between the vulnerable and wider society, to create an environment predicated on social responsibility and care for those around us.
Back to the slippery slope: nations who have legalised euthanasia indicate how the criteria applied to ill adults is inevitably extended to include children, the disabled and mentally ill. If we should not discuss the future legal ramifications of the bill, we should at the very least discuss the social trends that will likely impact British society. Euthanasia risks creating a social climate which normalises choosing one's own death, or providing insufficient care to the ill because euthanasia is now an alternative. There is no way of limiting the social repercussions once they spread except preventing the legalisation of euthanasia in the first place.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill seeks to alleviate suffering but does so in a way that fails to mitigate the risks of coercion, inequality and societal harm. Rather than offering true dignity to the terminally ill, it risks undermining their self-worth and devaluing their lives in the long run. The focus should instead be on reforming palliative care, a system that affects all ill adults, not only those 6 months away from death.
Comments