Assisted Dying: A Necessary Principle, But a Flawed UK Bill
The debate around assisted dying is a deeply emotional and ethical one. At its core, the principle that terminally ill people should have the right to choose the timing and manner of their death rather than endure unbearable suffering is fundamentally compassionate. However, the Assisted Dying Bill currently making its way through the UK Parliament has sparked significant controversy, not because of the principle it aims to enshrine, but due to its lack of adequate safeguards and troubling implications.
While MPs have voted in favour of the bill, a significant number have voiced concerns about its details. These MPs could have chosen to abstain, yet they opted to support the bill, possibly due to pressures of political alignment or the fear of appearing unsympathetic to the suffering of terminally ill individuals. Their votes might reflect a hope that the bill will be amended and improved over time, rather than a wholehearted endorsement of its current form.
The principle of assisted dying aligns with the values of autonomy and dignity. People facing the devastating progression of terminal illnesses deserve the right to make decisions about their own lives. However, such decisions must be made with the utmost care, ensuring that they are free from external pressures and are the sole choice of the individual concerned.
Unfortunately, the current bill appears to be progressing too rapidly, with insufficient attention given to the rigorous safeguards necessary to protect the vulnerable.
These safeguards have been built into the systems in use in countries like Canada, Belgium and The Netherlands. They have also been eroded over time in these same countries, leading to disabled veterarns being offered death instead of a wheelchair, or dozens of neurodiverse/autsitic people coerced in to it over the last 10 years.
Concerns from disability organisations like Telford GUARDIAN (Group for Universal Access for Responsible Development & Informed Activism Network), Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), Not Dead Yet, and many others, highlight fears that the bill lacks adequate protections against mistakes and coercion, which could have irreversible consequences.
The comparison to the abolition of the death penalty is apt; just as we recognised the fallibility of justice systems, we must acknowledge the potential for error in end-of-life decisions. Instances of incorrect terminal diagnoses and inappropriate "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) orders underscore the dangers of insufficient oversight. The medical community's tendency to bypass thorough discussions about DNR orders, as we saw during the Covid epidemic, raises legitimate fears about the implementation of assisted dying.
Moreover, the potential for coercion, especially among economically disadvantaged groups, cannot be ignored. The bill's lack of safeguards might inadvertently create pressure on individuals to end their lives for financial reasons, rather than medical necessity. This is particularly concerning given the historical abuses and mistakes in medical practice.
The bill's most alarming aspect is the rhetoric surrounding it. Comments from the Labour MP driving the bill, suggesting that "feeling like a burden" could justify assisted dying, are deeply troubling. Such sentiments could lead to societal coercion, where people choose death out of a misplaced sense of duty to relieve their families or society. The fear that this could be used to reduce welfare expenditures is a chilling prospect too.
The principle of assisted dying deserves careful consideration and implementation. It must prioritise the dignity and autonomy of individuals while ensuring that every possible safeguard is in place to prevent abuse and errors. The current bill, however, falls short of these essential standards.
As it stands, the Assisted Dying Bill risks undermining the very values it seeks to promote. It is imperative that Parliament pauses to address these significant concerns, ensuring that any legislation truly serves the needs and rights of those at the end of their lives. The message from opponents is clear: assist people to live with dignity and support before considering how they might choose to die.
Comments
Post a Comment