Why telling doctors to assist a suicide is wrong; why there is no such things as “a little euthanasia”; why Parliament should carefully study what has happened in other jurisdictions and not enact laws which can facilitate coercion, create fear among disabled and vulnerable people; and incrementally morph into laws which replace care with kill.
Although I am unable to speak in day two of the Second Reading debate of the assisted suicide Bill – which continues on Friday – because of being unable to physically attend the House while recovering from a spinal fracture – I would like to thank those colleagues who highlighted the inherent dangers of the legislation and hope that any attempt to push this legislation through without proper scrutiny will be strongly resisted. Two thirds of Peers who spoke on Day One expressed strong opposition or deep concerns about the Bill.
The key to understanding this Bill – euphemistically called “assisted dying” – is to consider two words, one in the title, and the other one not: “assisted” and “suicide.”
By requiring a doctor or other medics to assist in the deliberate ending of a patient’s life this Bill irredeemably changes the role of individual doctors and the NHS itself – turning it into a National Death Service. Care and kill are not synonyms.
In 1949 Aneurin Bevan, the founder of the NHS, told a Labour Party Conference that “the language of priories is the language of socialism”. More generally, it should be the language of politics and politicians. Britain’s priority should be a comprehensive and universally available end of life service based on hospice and palliative care provision.
The Government cant find the money for this but will be expected to find millions of pounds for euthanasia (a word which proponents also hesitate to use but which is what their proposals enable).
The other word – missing from the title of the Bill – is suicide.
I recently tabled a Question in Parliament about how an AI programme on the Internet encouraged a teenager to take his own life.
As a boy, I saw the effects on loved ones, and the wider family, when an uncle – a demobbed gunner, left deaf after the Second World War – took his own life. Encouraging suicide – and what can becomes a “duty to die” when coercion becomes part of the story – should have no place in British law.
There are lots of other reasons why I oppose this Bill.
I am appalled that the human rights of disabled people have been given so little consideration.
I am shocked that experiences from countries like Canada – where a veteran was offered euthanasia rather than a stair lift and where mental illness has been suggested as a reason for seeking an assisted suicide – and Holland – where numbers and categories (including children) have gown exponentially.
And I recall that in 1967 Parliament was told that the ending of unborn children’s lives would only be in extreme circumstances. Since that assertion was made to Parliament, there have been 10 million British lives ended since then – one every two and a half minutes. So don’t tell me the same will not happen with euthanasia.
You don’t have to share my views about the sanctity of human life to question the wisdom of enacting this Bill. On a matter of life and death, Parliament should not legislate in haste believing it can then repent at leisure.
You may wish to read https://www.davidalton.net/?s=euthanasia and my lecture on the long term consequences for society of enacting euthanasia legislation https://www.davidalton.net/2023/02/13/euthanasia-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences-speech-given-in-seoul-on-how-euthanasia-becomes-a-deadly-and-dangerous-contagion-which-threatens-the-safety-of-the-vulnerable-compromises-medics-ge/
Some of my posts about this Bill:
