By William Parker
As our members are no doubt aware, Kim Leadbeater has introduced a bill that would bring in assisted suicide to our health service. While this may not be a constitutional issue, the change it represents is one that is highly concerning to me and our fellow members.
I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that I stand against this legislation for a plethora of reasons.
We must improve end-of-life care for those who are terminally ill – ensuring they are comfortable in their last moments. Assisted dying would change care permanently, taking the focus away from comfort and placing it towards sacrificing one’s life to take pressure off the NHS.
I have no doubt that people will feel pressure to end their life as to not be a burden to others – the right to die becoming more of a “duty to die.”
The bill apparently has safeguards against coercion, but just because there are legal safeguards this does not mean that coercion will not still occur in some cases. This is especially true for those who are disabled and generally vulnerable.
I have no doubt that people will feel pressure to end their life as to not be a burden to others – the right to die becoming more of a “duty to die.”
The bill apparently has safeguards against coercion, but just because there are legal safeguards this does not mean that coercion will not still occur in some cases. This is especially true for those who are disabled and generally vulnerable.
It came as no surprise that Ed Davey, a man who has a disabled son, is so against this legislation.
I hate to use the term “it’s a slippery slope”, but I believe that applies in this case. We only have to look at Canada to know that assisted dying will take the same trajectory as abortion: more and more people will die each year despite the initial safeguards that make it seem as if the number will be small.
There are also several issues with the details of the legislation. What is defined as a terminal illness is subject to faulty criteria, which could mean that some non-terminal illnesses are counted as terminal.
Those suffering with depression may express a want to end their life, and under this legislation they would have that terrible opportunity handed to them.
Who signs off on the death warrant can be anyone with “good standing in the community” which is not even defined. Not to mention, the bill allows doctors to bring up the topic of assisted suicide before the patient has said a word about it.
With an NHS under increasing pressure, this fact should strike fear into anyone caring for a loved one with an illness, terminal or not. This is especially a worry for patients who are suffering with depression, which anyone will tell you is often hard to spot.
Those suffering with depression may express a want to end their life, and under this legislation they would have that terrible opportunity handed to them. Furthermore, the legal provisions will no doubt clog up the court system, which is already overwhelmed, presenting a host of complex and unique situations that are not easily predictable without hindsight.
And that’s one concern that perhaps stands above all the others: this bill creates an inherently unpredictable situation. There are so many potential issues that could arise that no piece of legislation, no matter how strong, could ever cover them all.
Where assisted dying has already been introduced, the safeguards in place are quickly seen as barriers that should be removed. In the same way that campaigners push to expand abortion, assisted dying could also be expanded leading to more and more deaths year on year.
And that’s one concern that perhaps stands above all the others: this bill creates an inherently unpredictable situation. There are so many potential issues that could arise that no piece of legislation, no matter how strong, could ever cover them all.
Even if this bill is passed with amendments, it says nothing about what specific drugs are to be used to hasten the ending of a human life. It simply leaves it down to future regulations.
What then will the NHS use to end the lives of their own patients? The answer is: we simply do not know.
How could anyone, knowing the limitations and risks of this legislation, still support such a dangerous change to the law? We’ve already seen that the introduction of suicide pods could become a reality with the passing of this bill, a terrifying prospect that makes this country look more dystopian than anything else.
The glaringly careless and sloppy wording of this bill makes it clear that it belongs in the dustbin of history. I rest my case.