Assisted Dying Bill - A Ticking "Time-Bomb"
While enshrining the right to assisted death into law might sound very tolerant, it is arguably a ticking time bomb, socially and ethically.
The British Parliament is set to debate a proposed bill to legalise assisted death under strict limitations.
The officially titled Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-25 will have its second reading in the House of Commons on November 29, 2024. It will apply to England and Wales.
Compassion must, of course, temper discussions on anything involving human suffering. But legitimate compassion for the ailing or bereaved few is never a sound foundation for public policy that will impact the many - for generations to come.
The argument over assisted dying is not a new one but it carries a special resonance in our time. We tend to live longer than our immediate forebears, but that also means we're around long enough to face new and unconquered illnesses.
Debilitation probably seems more offensive to us today because we place great faith in technology and pharmaceuticals, and their assumed capacity to deliver quality of life.
On a philosophical level, the rapid advances we see in technology encourage the idea that human beings can and should be the sole deciders of their destinies. It is a line of thought that arguably, in some ways, places individual rights above social responsibilities.
The potential impact of passing the assisted dying bill, on our social structure and the well-being of future generations should not be underestimated. Nor should the potential for frail human agencies, in the form of institutions or individuals, to turn good intentions into bad practice.
One of the many moral and legal minefields we'd face if assisted dying were legalised would be the question of the logistics of its provision. Not just in the immediate term but further into the future.
It's easy to stipulate, as the current proposal does, that two doctors and a senior judge must be involved in approving any application for assisted death.
But what provision would be made to prevent one of those doctors from being part of a business or organisation set up specifically to offer assisted dying, presumably for a price? And even if such provisions were made, what makes us think that they would not, in time, be aggressively lobbied against by private end-of-life companies with deep pockets and perhaps the power to make or break political careers?
Dignitas is the now famous - or infamous - privately owned Swiss organisation that provides assisted dying as a service, though it’s surely not the only such organisation. Making its base offering, the ending of lives, legal in the UK will doubtless lead to the birth of many similar businesses.
Over the past decade, we've heard many stories about the relatively few Brits who’ve paid their fees and travelled to suicide clinics to end their lives. Dignitas reports that 350 Brits have made use of its service.
Yet little is written about the thousands of terminally ill people who've stayed at home and received palliative care. They've chosen to pass away relatively peacefully, and naturally, in the hands of caring family members and professionals.
A perennial concern for many Brits is the possibility of the privatisation of parts of the National Health Service (NHS). Part of the worry is that under a part or entirely privatised health service, profit motives might quickly become more important than the burden of care.
The private profit-seeking sector will always look for ways to engage with the growing edges of new social phenomena.
If Parliament eventually passed the new proposal, what makes us think that we wouldn’t soon see the emergence of a profit-making industry devoted to ending life, where the business of dying is more important than the duty of care?
It's not unrealistic to imagine that we would see the emergence of privately owned, elegantly presented Dignitas-like organisations. They'd be run, effectively, as death clinics, openly advertising their wares.
In the process, they would contribute to a dark sense that we live in what Pope John Paul II called "a culture of death". (We should not underestimate the impact of that sense of foreboding on the minds of young people and children.)
There is, I'm sure, a healthy income to be made from trading on the promise of a comfortable death, especially in an age of deep uncertainty. But society as a whole would pay a much greater price for allowing assisted suicide or encouraging it.
In the sometimes warped world of social (but not sociable) media, people often speak about "choice" as their reason to support the proposed legislation. But the problem with this choice is that it is irrevocable and it will always affect people other than the patient.
The very principle of "mercy killing" (that's what it is) gives no thought to the potential impacts on families and friends or the doctors and/or judges who will be involved - some of whom won't have any idea what they're in for.
It gives no thought to the wider community either, including its disabled, elderly or young members, who will all arguably live under darker skies once we start effectively sanctioning (and eventually, perhaps, expecting) suicide in certain situations.
As Liz Carr, British actress and prominent disability rights activist puts it, "Though some people want the right to die, many of us are still fighting for the right to exist."
Even the terminology involved in the promotion of this bill should, at the very least, make us suspicious of its intent and potential effects.
Radicals always set out to change language in order to shift perception.
What was until recently called assisted suicide, or before that, mercy killing, is now being labelled assisted dying by the bill's proponents. Presumably, this is because they think taking decisive action to help someone die sounds more palatable than helping them commit suicide, or worse, killing them.
We should not be fooled by the marketing. The product is still dangerous, inhumane and unethical.
The state should focus on preserving and promoting life, not death.
???
JOIN THE FIGHT! Support our public campaign for Responsible AI. We urgently need your support. Click here for more.
| 
