Assisted Dying?

The ‘Assisted Dying’ bill has been recently introduced to Parliament by the Labour MP Kim Leadbetter. MPs are due to vote on it on 29th November 2024.

There are strong views on both sides, but polls suggest that somewhere in excess of 80% of the public support the right to ‘choose’ when to die. I find this a worrying statistic for the reasons set out in a letter I recently wrote to my MP, Julie Minns:

Dear Julie,

You may remember attending one of my services at Kirklinton church just before the Election? I am writing to express deep concern over the so-called ‘assisted dying’ bill, or perhaps more correctly, the assisted suicide bill.

I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by those who support the bill, including Ms Leadbetter, who is clearly a very compassionate person, Dame Esther Rantzen, and ‘Dignity in Dying’. The latter states on their website ‘Research from oversees shows assisted dying laws has (sic) no negative impact on vulnerable people.’ Without exception, the arguments all revolve around the choice of the individual concerned being of paramount priority: ‘my death, my decision’.

We have the ability to manage pain through palliative care, which is a question of resources, not principle. Clearly, much more needs to be done to provide for hospice care and care in the community to alleviate pain and suffering, and support the families, and to make this available for everyone. The issue then, appears to revolve around perceived ‘quality of life’, which is expressed in terms of ‘dignity’.

Quite apart from the 6th Commandment, my overriding concern, however, is not with the individual and their perceived rights of ‘choice’, but with the protection of those who feel they are a burden to those who look after them. As a parish priest, I have the extraordinary privilege of being invited into the homes, and to the beds, of people who are ill, suffering, and shortly to die. I see them in their complete dependency on others to look after them. They often have no ability to care for or clean themselves. They are dependent on others to feed them, to wash them, to change them, and to clean them after bowel and bladder movements. They have lost all ‘dignity’ in the sense that advocates of assisted suicide mean, and perhaps it is the fear of being in this condition that drives their concern for ‘choice’.

And yet I am aware that I tread on holy ground. The dying person’s dignity does not lie in their ability to be ‘independent’, but precisely in their vulnerability in having to accept the help of others. It is here that the true nature of love is revealed – the giving of care and compassion with no anticipation of ‘reward’ save that of knowing you have loved as best you can. The ‘dignity’ lies in being so loved and honoured.

So I have two primary concerns.

1. As the law currently stands, there is no possibility of the thought of ‘assisted dying’ being an option for someone who is being cared for. That means there is no pressure, of any sort, on them to consider choosing to end their life in order to not be a burden to others – it is not an option. If the law was to change, this burden becomes a choice. If you have the choice to end your life, by definition you also have the choice not to, and, for those who feel they are a burden, choosing not to end their life also means choosing to be that burden to others. This is a terrifying position in which to put someone. Advocates of ‘assisted dying’ claim evidence from other countries shows there is ‘no negative impact on vulnerable people’. But that statement can no more be verified than one person can know the state of another’s conscience. If just one person chooses to die because they feel they are a burden to those around them, then we have failed them. It is a statistic that no-one can measure. As long as assisted suicide remains illegal, they are protected. We must ensure they remain so. This is a far more important principle than having a ‘choice’ to die.
   
2. Changing the law to make assisted suicide legal drives a category change in society’s conscience and perception of life. Popular opinion may want change, but the fact that it is presently illegal carries its own weight in most people’s consciences. Making it legal means the principle of ‘mercy’ killing is accepted, which then opens up a deep shift in the nature of people’s perception of life. Human life becomes valued in the same category as animal life, over which we have the choice to end when we choose. Already I have heard advocates saying the predicted remaining lifespan of a person with terminal illness, within which assisted suicide should be allowed, should not be limited to the final 6 months, but should be extended to a year. I have heard others advocating that it shouldn’t be restricted to a terminal condition only, but include chronic pain and suffering: ‘end unnecessary suffering’ shout the banners. Once the change of category from illegal to legal has been made, these other arguments are then just arguments about degree, not the principle, which has already been lost. We must never lose the principle of the sanctity of human life, not even if popular opinion thinks choice and convenience should trump all other considerations, because once it is lost it can never be regained.

For the sake of all those who are sensitive to the burden they are, or might become, to others, please vote against this bill.

Kind regards,

Revd Dr Robert Brown