The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its first major check in the House of Commons on the 29th of November. While Labour might hope otherwise, this landmark legislation is likely to go down as the best or worst decision of this parliamentary term. For those unconvinced of the validity of the bill, I will address some of the issues raised by critics; I hope that by the end of this article I can show why they should not stand in the path of this law. If not, I direct you to the alternate article on the subject which will likely hold more appeal.
The bill gives residents of the UK aged 18 and over, who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have less than 6 months to live, the choice to end their own lives, through an arguably more humane process than that which their natural deaths would entail. These people would have to make two separate, witnessed statements of their intent to die. Two doctors would have to sign off on the eligibility of the patient, with at least 7 days between the evaluations. A high court judge must review the case, drawing relevant individuals to testify that the patient is not being coerced etc. After this, the patient must wait at least 2 consecutive weeks between the judge’s ruling and their administered death to reflect on the gravity of their situation.
Despite these precautionary measures, some still hold reservations against the safeguards in the bill. To respond to these, I draw your attention to the legal framework around assisted dying at the moment - or in the words of the creator of the bill, Kim Leadbeater, "the lack of legal framework". The current offering of choice for many vulnerable individuals is such: they can suffer a prolonged and agonising death, or they can find some other unregulated and unprotected form of suicide. Those who choose the latter do not go through any consultation, have no time put upon them for reflection and have absolutely no shielding from coercion. Beyond this, they are unable to access the support needed to think through or rethink their decision. We must also note that we are addressing thoughtful, legal adults. To argue as some do that they are incapable of making their own choice is an insult to their capabilities and rationality. Long since, we have treated elderly people much like the way we treat children; they are fully capable of making an autonomous decision to save themselves a slow and painful death, and they deserve to be treated as such.
There is currently unequal access to assisted dying in the UK; only the wealthiest of the country have access to assisted death procedures. Those with the funds can fly themselves out to Switzerland and end their lives there, but even those who currently have access to the procedure are unable to do so with proper safeguarding. Those who do make their final trip must do so in secrecy: they cannot tell their families, or have them by their side in their final moments, lest they leave their loved ones behind with the risk of being charged for assisting their death. In not legalising the procedure in the UK, we leave those people too, with an impossible choice – to leave their families without explanation, to feel utterly alone in their final moments, or to risk landing their children and family with criminal cases in trying to end their own suffering. We have turned people who love others so deeply into criminals for taking the most difficult act of selflessness I can think of.
Another objection is the state of adult social care in the UK. It's difficult to imagine making suicide accessible when the alternative of palliative care is so abysmal that people might end up feeling like they don’t have a real choice at all. Without question, palliative care needs reform, and urgently. But the question is then raised of why we should force those who already want to die to live their last 6 months in this failing system. Leadbeater herself has expressed her gratitude to those who discuss comfort care; it is a discussion which needs to be had, and it is important that we do not drop the subject once this legislation has passed through the machine of Parliament. However, it should not derail this bill. Further, a perfect palliative care system could still not avoid cases of children watching their parents’ torture as they slowly reach their natural end, or save a spouse the trauma of their partner’s anguish. Death, particularly a natural death, is painful, crude, debilitating and undignified. Assisted dying provisions would offer the dying a way to bring their death about on their own terms, saving themselves and their loved ones great heartbreak.
One other issue raised is the slippery slope being risked. In some countries, the eligibility criteria were once as strict as here in the UK, but have expanded to include children, disabled and mentally ill individuals. This objection, beyond committing its namesake fallacy, misses a key point – we are responsible for any changes in the law. We cannot deny terminally ill individuals their right to a human death on the basis of the future possibility that we might expand the criteria. I want to make clear that what we are discussing here is not whether we should oppose future amendments to the law. We are discussing the humane treatment of elderly people, who should not be forced to lie and hide or to choke to death or to starve to death or to beg their own family to murder them.
Passing this bill is to pass unto terminally ill citizens dignity in their final moments, safeguarding against coercion and an invaluable autonomy which those before them have been denied.
Comments