Assisted dying ignores “what it is to be human” a member of the Church of England wrote recently, but who is to decide what it is “to be human”? For them it is presumably a spiritual matter but for others it could just be based on the biology of the human body and its frailties.
Similarly, a self-appointed “progressive” wrote that people “ought to” end their lives by making the most of their last months. But who are they to tell others what they ought to do, especially if that person has no capacity to make the most of their life? The same writer also stated that, with this bill, a person might be put under pressure to end their life in the “wrong” way. But who is someone to tell another person what is or isn’t the wrong or right way to spend their last days?
It seems we are being expected to abide by another person’s God or belief system in this. At a point in time in history it was declared that a life was the gift of God but there can be no concrete evidence of this, only faith. I believe in the sacredness of life but that does not extend to prolonging it beyond what is tolerable for the individual, plus there are many people who don’t believe in this particular God, or any God, or have other beliefs, but have been dictated to for centuries by people forcing these regulations on others.
After all, the established religions were against IVF to create life at first, yet this breakthrough has changed women’s and family’s lives and brought precious children into the world. Watch the new movie Joy for a flavour of this.
Contrarily the CofE seems to have been remarkably quiet on the issue of saying that one’s birth sex was created by God in a specific way. In fact, Welby, as Archbishop of Canterbury, supported trans ideology being taught in schools, which, on the basis of considering “what it is to be human” seems to be very much on the spectrum of making it an individual choice as to what sex one is, despite being born a particular way. So, if we can have individual choice over one’s body on changing sex, why can’t we have it on choosing to end our lives?
The NHS already acts as God, as does the Government, by making budgetary and clinical decisions around who will get medication and who will not. It is already an Excel spreadsheet and postcode lottery. It is certainly possible that the NHS could be as keen to kill us off as our relatives would, potentially by applying the Do Not Resuscitate notices.
The independent Office of Health Economics estimated that around 20 terminally ill people in the UK die in unrelieved pain each day. Also, fewer than 5% of terminally ill people in England who needed hospice care received it in 2023. It isn’t always possible to alleviate all pain, and many doctors know how miserable that can be. It may be distressing to assist a death, but it is also distressing for staff not to be able to help a patient be free of pain.
Two-thirds of the UK population want to go ahead with some form of assisted dying, and it is telling that many of them are in the over-65 age-bracket. In other words, closer to death than some of the people who are dictating the law to us. In the conversations I have had with my peer group, most of us are anxious about the end of our lives. Most of us want to exit this world with dignity. Most of the friends I have spoken to say we would choose to die rather than linger in some care home or NHS ward in some state of pain or distress. We might well choose to go a little earlier but leave this world with dignity, for our own sake as much as that of our families.
What is stopping us are old belief systems that belong to another era, to religions other than our own, other beliefs than our own. And fear – the endless fear of “the slippery slope” that people will feel they are a burden. Yes, they might but parents make sacrifices for their children all the time and I hear often that elderly relatives say that their life has become unbearable and that they want to die but can’t. And, as I wrote above, my main fear is whether I have sufficient money to pay for a care home and/or whether I shall die in pain or without dignity.
Personally, I don’t think it should be the general doctor or hospital ward that supervises these cases. I believe it should be the Palliative Care system that already deals with compassionate ways of looking after people in their last days. I have seen people write that we should improve the Palliative Care system rather than approve the Assisted Dying bill. I believe we should do both and have specialist teams who oversee the terminally ill and ensure their death is as peaceful as possible.
The likelihood of being able to get a High Court Judge to approve these cases is surely only going to lead to more distress and delay, as the courts can’t even bring rape or assault cases to court for years on end. How can a High Court Judge add anything to the equation, or more than two objective doctors, the person themselves and their families? What evidence will they be able to analyse, and how? If there is a dispute, obviously the law will need to be actively involved. Otherwise, I don’t see that involving a Judge brings anything other than more delay and complexity to an already complex event.
In this country we have to effectively starve ourselves to death if we wish to die and, unless we are in a position to be cared for, that can be painful and distressing for all involved. The alternative is to go to Dignitas, but why should we be forced to travel to another country and potentially put any relative or friend who accompanies us at risk of being accused of being an accomplice?
If we allowed an animal to be in the pain or distress that we allow humans to be, we would be reported to the RSPCA for cruelty. It seems to me outrageous that I can give my cat a more dignified and peaceful death than I can expect to have myself. This isn’t murder. This is a choice personally made about one’s own life, one’s own body. Why should the state or another person have the right to choose what I do with my body if I am not threatening anyone else or putting anyone else at risk?
Of course, safeguards need to be put in place, and I think we need to be very careful when it comes to disability and also mental illness. I have personal experience of those who were mentally ill and suicidal but came out of it and lived happy lives for many decades afterwards. I am horrified by the posters placed on the tube by Sadiq Khan and TfL apparently of young people celebrating suicide. This is not what this bill is about. It is a serious piece of legislation intended to put some people, not all, and only by personal choice, out of their misery as they approach the end of their lives.
There are moments when the world and its possibilities change and, yes, we need to learn from all the mistakes and breakthroughs other nations have made in this complicated subject. IVF was a compassionate breakthrough and so, I believe, can assisted dying be. To help someone die peacefully and out of pain can also be a compassionate breakthrough.
2 responses
Very thoughtful post Helen, thankyou.
I agree with your position in most aspects, but would suggest there is another.
At today this issue is being argued on the basis of whether or not to ‘assist’. Later this week we will see the result of the public debate in the Commons. Assuming it goes through we will then have a tightly controlled/monitored process following which a small number of people will submit themselves to it.
I foresee however that with passage of time and gradual incremental changes in attitude and the actual process itself, in say 50 years time it will have evolved into something taken for granted – “oh you know poor old Bill – well they let him go last week, you know the poor old sod he was past it really – gave him a nice drink after his supper while his family stood round. Bless him” – and that will become the norm.
Thanks John, yes it may happen, though my cousin in Switzerland says it is indeed fairly much the norm now but there is very seldom pressure from family. It is a personal choice. So I am not sure that your scenario is such an awful one. It would only be awful if someone else made the decision for poor old Bill, not him.