A private member’s bill to legalise Assisted Dying is currently before parliament for a vote on 29th November. The term “Assisted Dying” means physician-assisted suicide. There are strong lobbies to change the law in favour of allowing Assisted Dying, and there have been repeated attempts in the past to change the law to allow it. Several countries have in recent years passed laws that enable assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is where the physician or other agent directly ends the patient’s life.
There is a wide range of reasons for opposition to assisted dying or physician assisted suicide. Here I want to focus on why I believe the proposed change to the law is wrong and dangerous. The current position is that both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are illegal in all parts of the UK. This is no doubt based on a Christian ethic. The proposal would change this for certain defined cases, for example illness with a terminal prognosis. The problem with changing the law to accept suicide in certain cases, even when this is by individual choice, is that it legitimises the deliberate ending of a life, setting a precedent in law. This opens the way for other cases to be considered acceptable, leading inevitably to the devaluation of life and diminishing respect for life.
It is claimed that the proposed law would put limits and safeguards in place. However the experience of all other legislatures where assisted dying has been made legal is that limits are exceeded and safeguards are eroded, even being overridden by the courts in some cases. Examples of this erosion are extension of assisted dying to cases where there is no terminal prognosis (eg mental illness, disability), widening the conditions that qualify under the legislation (for example, eating disorders), and the changing of age limits. A major impact of such extensions to application of assisted dying would be the effect on other vulnerable people. They will feel pressure to be a burden no longer, and in some cases may very well be subject to coercion by those who are not motivated by what is good but by financial or other gain. These are some of the bad things that follow. They would not happen in the absence of a change to the law.
The argument for changing the law to allow assisted suicide can be made on grounds of compassion. It might appear to be good and desirable to end a life for the avoidance of suffering, or to end a life which is thought not worth continuing. However this position may come from a lack of understanding about death and also undervalue or overlook the significant benefit of good palliative and end of life care. Arguments are also made on grounds of choice and of self-determination. As Christians we understand that our choices and self-determination can be flawed. I believe that changing the law in the way that is proposed ignores God’s restraints. Law exists not to restrain those doing good but these who would do what is wrong. Allowing assisted suicide would be to set the law wrongly. If you set the law wrongly, bad things will follow. As in Eden, taking to ourselves the knowledge of good and evil may lead to unexpected and irretrievable loss, as God’s restraints are ignored.
Assisted dying necessarily involves the medical professions in ending peoples’ lives. This would fundamentally change doctor-patient relationships, and not for the better. This may particularly affect the palliative care movement. In Canada the law is moving to require all providers of palliative care to offer assisted dying as a care option.
Great strides have been made in the field of palliative care medicine and this is a much more positive approach to end of life care than assisting suicide. Palliative and end of life care relieves suffering, working to find improved ways to do so, and supports those who are dying to come to terms with it – surely necessary and helpful in a society which doesn’t like to think about death very much. Hospices support families and loved ones as well. Surely our priority should be to fund and promote palliative care appropriately so that it becomes available to all in need of it.
I believe this Bill needs to be vigorously opposed, and would encourage others to do this. An effective means of opposing now is to email your MP to state your views on the issue and ask them to vote against the Bill. MPs email addresses can be found at www.members.parliament.uk
Geoff Simons
Leave a Reply