We are political opponents, but we agree: the assisted dying bill should not pass
We are MPs from different parties with different political beliefs. But on the question of assisted suicide we share the same position: we will vote against its legalisation in Parliament.
We understand why some disagree with us. No one should die an undignified death, and both of us have had family members die in discomfort. But the Bill published this week has problems in principle and detail.
Proponents argue we all have the right to autonomy over our own bodies and should be free, in some circumstances, to decide how and when we die. But no choice we make solely affects ourselves - even something as intimate as dying.
The legalisation of assisted suicide would change our relationship with the medical profession. Although no medical professional would be obliged to carry out assisted suicide, doctors would not, under this Bill, be prevented from suggesting assisted suicide to patients who have not raised it as an option. Neither does it allow them to opt out of discussing assisted suicide or referring patients to doctors who are willing to carry out the act.
More fundamentally, assisted suicide would change our relationship with the vulnerable, infirm and elderly. The very existence of the choice to die would change our relationships even with those we love. And the pressure to choose to die would not necessarily come from relatives but within. Consider a grandparent with a terminal illness confronting the cost of a care home, and comparing it with the cost of eliminating a grandchild’s student debt. A right to die could become a duty to die.
In Oregon assisted suicide is legal and its model is cited by campaigners here. There, a far higher proportion of those who request assisted suicide do so because they feel they are a “burden” to their family than because they are in unbearable pain.
In the Netherlands, where assisted suicide accounts for one in twenty deaths, applications granted included one from a teenager with depression. In Canada, a disabled man who feared eviction from social housing received a doctors’ permission to die. A Paralympian was offered euthanasia equipment when she sought a wheelchair lift for her home.
Campaigners here say they propose safeguards to prevent the legal scope of assisted suicide broadening in this way in Britain. But nobody believes that the scope will not broaden, and the logical endpoint – a grimly utilitarian approach that puts a value on human life – is the same.
The Bill obliges the Health Secretary to ensure that assisted suicide is available to those who successfully request it. There will be no equivalent duty for him to provide palliative care to patients approaching the end of their lives. Wes Streeting, who has said he will vote against the Bill, has said “if Parliament chooses to go ahead with assisted dying, it is making a choice that this is an area to prioritise for investment”. This choice, he says, “would come at the expense of other choices.” We need to find ways to improve the funding for and availability of palliative care, not risk its reduction.
The proposed safeguards raise more questions than they answer. Many are so ambiguous or open to loopholes that they are functionally meaningless. For example, patients may consent to assisted suicide by proxy by ‘reason of physical improvement, being unable to read, or for any other reason’. This is alarmingly open, and there would be no obligation imposed on coroners to investigate deaths by assisted suicide.
While two different doctors must approve a patient’s request for assisted suicide - and supposedly enhance the independence of the decision - the first doctor selects the second, and if the second objects to signing off, the first may select another who will approve. There also appears to be no prohibitions on patients whose applications have been denied from making further requests until they find doctors willing to grant approval.
The Bill also proposes that applications should be approved by the High Court. There are eighteen High Court judges in the Family Division, so given likely demand this seems an unrealistic suggestion. And there is a considerable chance that demand is likely to increase over time, worsening the burden. In Canada assisted suicide cases have multiplied in only six years and now account for 4.1 per cent of all deaths. Refusals have become relatively rarer, from eight per cent of all requests in 2019 to 3.5 per cent in 2022. We can expect a similar story here if the law is changed.
We agree too many people die in pain. Our society does not protect the most vulnerable as it should. But legalising assisted suicide is not the answer: we need to give patients a better death with better care.