Last Friday’s Vote on whether terminally ill individuals should have the power to choose the time and circumstance of their death was a historic turning point. Parliament was unusually respectful as MPs listened to emotional cases regarding terminally ill patients and their families affected by the bill. The 330 votes for patients who have 6 months or less and who would rather end their lives to prevent prolonged suffering marks a significant cultural shift from 2015, when there were 331 votes against the assisted dying bill. While the bill has only passed the first vote, this change reflects societies move towards granting individuals more bodily autonomy.
The principle behind the bill, whether an individual should hold the power to end their life, was certainly a divisive one and with good reason. While the arguments from MPs regarding religion and sanctity of life seem to fall somewhat short in a secular state, especially since individuals will not be forced to end their lives if they believe it is sacred, there are other convincing reasons that protesters have for hesitancy in allowing this. My point of concern comes in in the risk of the terminally ill feeling like their life is a burden on those around them. The worry is that ability to end their life will turn into pressure to end their life if they feel that being cared for is too socially and financially draining. While the pressure may not be actively exerted by those around them, it may come from an internal sense of guilt in holding their friends and family back. While I did hear a radio interview in which a proponent for the bill argued that if she ever felt she was becoming a burden to her children, she would want the power to end her life to stay feeling dignified, this response seems unsatisfying as many would not wish to do so, and would want to avoid potentially creating this sense of obligation to die. Admittedly, this is a major worry, and unfortunately there is no perfect solution to prevent it, it is just my belief that the concern is outweighed by the necessity of allowing people to prevent unnecessary suffering. The best strategy for combatting the burden feeling problem appears to be working on improving hospice care on the NHS to the point that the individuals would not feel like a burden either socially (as the family wouldn’t have to be doing the work in looking after them) or financially. While this may take a while, the solution is surely to focus on figuring out an effective way of doing so thereby addressing the root of the problem and ensuring that people do not feel like a burden, rather than restricting their autonomy.
Another worry which opponents of the bill raised is that it is a slippery slope: although it only currently affects terminally ill adults, this shift marks the first step in allowing assisted dying for a much broader category. To this, I would respond that future decisions will only be made if they have enough support at the time, and if they do then that is surely a sign that they are the right decision. Personally, I would argue that the ability to choose assisted dying should be broadened to at least people who have conditions which lead to extensive suffering. Since it is only that individual which experiences the pain of their condition, surely it is their decision whether to choose to die rather than continue to suffer with it, and to restrict them from doing so is to act unacceptably paternalistically. For those of us lucky enough to not have been affected by this issue, it is difficult to empathise with those who have chronic conditions which genuinely make life feel as though it isn’t worth living, and while it is easy to argue for perseverance from outside, this is not a decision we should be able to make on behalf of anyone else. Those who have a terminal condition at least know that their suffering will not be prolonged past a certain period, but for those who have a non-terminal disease there is not necessarily an end in sight. Surely, it is cruel to argue that they should have to live in blind hope of a miraculous recovery anyway, and so they should at least be given the option of opting out of this, without the current stigma of suicide or having to become a criminal or turn their family into criminals by requesting their help to end their life illegally.
Furthermore, I would argue that this bill should be expanded to those under 18. The most common objection that this comes up against is that there is a risk that people could end their lives rashly, and this is more likely in children as their brains are not yet fully developed. However, requiring the approval of two doctors is specifically put in place to stop cases like this – doctors would not approve the death of a child unless the suffering is very obviously unbearable, and when this is the case surely it is cruel to expect a child to endure a condition which we would not expect an adult to. Suffering does not discriminate by age and putting an arbitrary cutoff on when people can make these decisions does not seem to acknowledge this, instead creating an unacceptable double standard. Additionally, although the child may not be as well placed to judge whether they should stay alive as if they had been an adult, they are still the best placed to judge whether the amount of suffering they are experiencing makes life not worth living for them.
To anyone interested in watching, the debate is highly interesting and available for free. MP Kim Leadbeater (who introduced the bill) responds to a number of concerns and makes her case highly persuasively.