Shame on Parliament for rushing through this Assisted Dying Bill
The assisted dying debate has been seemingly dominated by supporters of the Bill, which passed its second reading with a 55-vote majority on Friday, many of whom argue that we must be able to put people down, much like animals.
“We wouldn’t let a dog suffer in the way humans do,” they claim, even though the two are not remotely comparable. For a start, Rover doesn’t have any say in the matter.
And MPs spent just five hours debating proposed legislation which will bring about the most dramatic societal shift in our lifetime: state-sponsored euthanasia. Comparatively, they spent more than 600 hours debating whether to ban hunting with dogs.
This proposal should never have been tabled in a Private Members’ Bill, which is given far less parliamentary time than a government bill.
How on earth can parliamentarians be expected to assess the full ramifications of assisted suicide in just half a day? This was, quite literally, a vote about life and death. It was rushed through when there was absolutely no urgency to do so.
Last week, I argued that the government would be better served legislating for improved palliative care in hospitals and more funding for the hospice sector. As Toby Porter, the CEO for Hospice UK, has rightly pointed out, the only aspect of this debate that has unified MPs is that end of life care in the UK is currently completely insufficient.
“It is intolerable that anyone might choose an assisted death because of a fear that they won’t get the care they need,” he said.
“That fear, at present, is real, and justified. The Government must act, now and in the long term, to change this.”
Why were MPs in such a hurry to legalise a complete inversion of the Hippocratic oath, rather than expediting help to the hard-pressed doctors and nurses delivering palliative care?
If this had been a Bill about animal rights, it would have been debated ad nauseam. But apparently humans do not deserve to be given as careful consideration as other mammals.