Document Actions
Amber alert on assisted dying
Following the publication by the Director of Public Prosecutions on assisted suicide, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton says this represents another step along the road to sanctioning the ending of what others regard as worthless lives
I
am obviously disappointed that these guidelines signal the first moves
toward state-sanctioned assisted dying, albeit in another country. Keir
Starmer says this is just clarifying the law, not changing it. However,
that is not the way members of the pressure group Dignity in Dying are
interpreting it. I warned about sleepwalking into an assisted dying
culture only two months ago when I challenged Lord Falconer’s amendment
to the Coroner’s and Justice Bill. On that occasion the amendment was
defeated. I likened such seemingly small moves to traffic lights. I
think we are definitely on amber now, soon to turn green on a culture
which says: to be severely disabled or ill is a state worse than death,
so let’s put ourselves out of our misery. I wonder how comfortable
hundreds of your readers who live with challenging impairments feel
about their new image? Once we were charity cases; are we now “dead men
walking” – or should I say dead people wheeling?
Most importantly, while for the greater part they seek to be applicable to the population as a whole, they also target people who are seriously ill or have progressive disability as a class which, by inference, is seen as less deserving of the law’s full protection than are the rest of the non-disabled public.
I’m also concerned that they take a more lenient view of assistance with suicide given by spouses, partners, close relatives and close friends than by other people – yet it is precisely amid family dynamics and close relationships where exists the greatest scope for assistance to be given with ulterior motivation behind closed doors; think of all the overstrained carers and families who have been given little or no support for years!
They do not make clear where physicians sit in all this – it is possible to interpret the guidelines as they stand as taking a lenient view of patient assisted suicide. While I accept that their concern is with assisted suicide as a whole, I do feel that, if we are not to have euthanasia by the back door foisted onto us, we need a statement to the effect that assistance given by a physician to a patient in the course of his or her professional duties will be regarded as possible grounds for prosecution. Otherwise this changes the dynamic between patient and doctor. Already that relationship has been under question on occasions. Some of us are personally familiar with those initials DNR (Do not resuscitate) appearing on our notes because of decisions made about the value of our lives by doctors.
assisted dying
I saw no reference to adult, disabled individuals having the right, fully cognizant of all the peripheral issues and the alternative strategies for maintaining "dignity of life", to decide for themselves that they had had enough and wanted an early exit.
Many of the contrary arguments refer to vulnerable individuals who may be coerced or manipulated by cynical relatives or even professionals into making the wrong decision. That's frightening because we can imagine ourselves in that hideous situation and it certainly is an area for concern. That subject needs to be fully explored and discussed but -- and it is very important to draw this distinction -- it has little or nothing to do with the basic proposition that I would support, that rational and informed adults who are physically incapable of committing suicide unaided should, with due safeguards, have the assistance they require.
We all have an inbuilt, default philosophy: no matter what today may bring, whatever hardships, pain and suffering we may have to face, there is some point in carrying on. The point may be that tomorrow could be better, the pain or suffering will lessen, things will improve somehow. That being the case, it's worth putting up with it -- after all, things could get better.... Otherwise, there is simply no point in a whole succession of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. For some, that point is reached and, quite simply, whatever the effort required to get through another day, tomorrow just isn't worth it. Getting out of the whole living process will be a welcome escape.
This can be quite a rational decision, made by people of quite sound mind who decide that they just do not want to carry on living. This isn't about feeling worthless or burdensome -- it really can be about an individual thinking "I've had enough. I want out." For those who have come to that decision but are unable to give effect to it themselves, help is required. Denying them the right to that assistance effectively condemns them to a life they do not want. And it's not about pain relief either: for some, the only drugs that would successfully manage their pain would render them comatose anyway. In many cases, conditions that require that level of medication are often fatal anyway, so what would be the point of prolonging their misery?
Many objections to any form of assisted dying are predicated upon religious convictions which hold that only God can determine the time of death. Their convictions effectively ensure continued suffering for people who do not share them. "Quality of life" is another curious concept used to justify that position. There is, quite simply, a refusal to acknowledge the fact that for some people, quality of life is not a matter of reduced pain, gentle nursing and physical comfort -- it's about the life in their head, and if they've had enough of that, why not respect their wishes?