The Undoubted Character of Murder

In the only newspaper a columnist on which could have drawn rapturous crowds of over 1000 in Middlesbrough this afternoon and over 1700 in Newcastle this evening, Lamiat Sabin writes:

Disabilities campaigners will protest against the “very real dangers” of the assisted dying Bill as the Commons votes on it, they announced yesterday.

Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) said that legalising assisted suicide would “remove, rather than give, choice.”

MPs will vote on the divisive issue for the first time in 19 years on September 11, when Wolverhampton South West MP Rob Morris’s Bill faces its second reading.

But DPAC’s Ellen Clifford calls on supporters in an exclusive article in today’s Morning Star to join it in protesting outside Parliament on that day.

“Before we give disabled people assistance to kill ourselves we want the assistance to live,” the group said. “What doesn’t exist for ill and disabled people is a right to independent living and to the support we need to take part in society with the same life chances as other people.”

The Independent Living Fund gave disabled people freedom in choosing the care they needed to be able to remain living in their communities — until the Tory government ended it last month after 27 years.

DPAC activists unexpectedly stormed into Parliament in June over the decision to axe the fund.

A similar Bill proposed by Lord Falconer, to allow severely ill and disabled people to demand self-administered suicide drugs from doctors, is awaiting a second reading by the Lords.

But Lord Falconer admitted on the BBC’s Daily Politics that assisted suicide sought to help people who felt that relying on others was “intolerable,” rather than those mainly dealing with chronic pain.

Ms Clifford argues that the Bills “trample all over the views of the people who will be most affected by legalisation — health workers and disabled people.”

The British Medical Association and Royal Colleges of Physicians, GPs and Surgeons oppose the plans, as do 90 per cent of palliative doctors.

“An ‘assisted dying’ law sends the message that if you are terminally ill, ending your life is something that it is appropriate to consider,” writes Ms Clifford.

“Meanwhile, it encourages investment away from palliative care and treatment.”

Campaigners raised the case of 64-year-old Barbara Wagner from Oregon, US, who was diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer.

A doctor prescribed chemotherapy but her insurance would not cover it. Instead, she received a letter saying that the insurers would pay for assisted suicide drugs.

The Morning Star  itself editorialises:

Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) is to be congratulated on its courage for battling the assisted dying Bills going through both Houses of Parliament.

As Ellen Clifford notes in today’s exclusive article for the Morning Star, there is a difference between this campaign and DPAC’s superb work fighting Atos’s humiliating and unfair Fit for Work tests or its heroic effort to save the independent living fund, now removed by our hard-right government.

That difference is that DPAC will find itself on the opposite side of the argument from many of its natural allies on the left, who “tend to assume they are in favour” of assisted suicide.

Clifford’s wording is important here — “tend to assume.” She is right that there is a real danger that the left sleepwalks into endorsing a change in the law on euthanasia without carefully considering its implications.

That risk is heightened by the bizarre timing of the second reading of Rob Marris’s controversial Bill — set to take place on September 11, when all Labour’s attention will be on the result of the leadership election announced the following day.

In the assisted dying debate socialists have largely left the field to liberals, apart from a couple of thoughtful articles in this newspaper on the subject by Paul Donovan and Ben Parankulangara.

This has allowed the conversation to be dominated by talk of individual autonomy and the “right to die” — which as Clifford notes already exists — without consideration of the social context in which individuals are asked to exercise that right.

That is a Britain of yawning inequality, led by a government intent on the privatisation of our public services.

Regular readers of this newspaper will be aware of the crippling cost and inefficiency of privatisation, but the issue here runs deeper.

Privatised services exist for one reason only — to make a profit.

Most of this country’s social care network is already in private hands and we are all familiar with the problems this causes: endemic low pay, staff being given insufficient time to look after patients properly and a price tag that many families cannot afford, with care home fees running into thousands of pounds a month.

Such fees can easily swallow up an inheritance or force the sale of a house.

It is hardly surprising if older people in need of care often feel guilty about the impact of their longevity on their children.

Similar guilt has been widely observed among disabled people worried about the impact of their disability on their loved ones.

A government which has demonised people with disabilities — leading to a sustained rise in hate crime against them — is creating a chilling atmosphere in which the terminally ill will be asked if it is worth their while to continue living.

This has led to a climate of fear and incomprehension around disability.

Paralympic gold medallist Tanni Grey-Thompson and disabled comedian Liz Carr have both reported strangers telling them they would rather die than have to live as they do.

The advocates of assisted dying have proved surprisingly flexible about the conditions under which it should apply.

Will children be allowed to choose to die, as in the Netherlands and Belgium? Are people with mental health problems, depression or dementia able to make such a choice?

Is Lord Falconer right that people who find “loss of independence” “intolerable” should be helped to kill themselves?

Paying for people to live in dignity is expensive and unprofitable. It does not make sense in capitalist terms — one reason why bastions of the right such as The Economist and The Sun have become cheerleaders for assisted dying.

But we are not capitalists.

Socialists should think carefully before accepting any policy that involves killing the weak — even with their apparent permission.

Turn the page, and Ellen Clifford writes:

This summer Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) will be taking on our most controversial campaign yet as we fight the Assisted Dying Bills going through Parliament.

We will highlight the severe dangers that the legalisation of assisted suicide poses.

DPAC is probably best known for our campaigns against Atos — the company that profits from pushing disabled people off benefits through punitive assessments — and to save the Independent Living Fund, a source of essential support for disabled people with high support needs.

We have always had to resort to direct action to get attention for our issues which are otherwise neglected by the mainstream.

This time the fight against legalisation of assisted suicide is even more complicated by the emotive nature of the subject and the fact that many of our natural allies tend to assume they are in favour.

We aim through our campaign to bust the myths and show how legalising will remove, rather than give, choice and add to disabled people’s oppression.

On September 11 MPs will get to vote on this controversial subject for the first time in 19 years when Rob Marris’s Assisted Dying Bill has its second reading in the House of Commons. 

Meanwhile a nearly identical Bill proposed by Lord Falconer is making its way through the House of Lords.

This parliamentary determination to legalise assisted suicide tramples all over the views of the people who will be most affected by legalisation — health workers and disabled people.

The Bill places decision-making with doctors, yet surveys have shown many would be unwilling to engage in such practices.

The British Medical Association and Royal Colleges of Physicians, GPs and Surgeons are opposed to a change in the law, as are 90 per cent of palliative doctors who specialise in the treatment and care of people with terminal illness.

Three-quarters of GPs oppose assisted suicide with reasons given including fears that a change in the law will result in less focus on investment in palliative care and the dangers of patients feeling pressured into choosing death.

An “assisted dying” law sends the message that if you are terminally ill, ending your life is something that it is appropriate to consider.

Meanwhile it discourages investment in palliative care and treatment, as evidenced by the case of Barbara Wagner in Oregon, a 64-year-old diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer.

Her oncologist prescribed chemotherapy to slow cancer growth, reduce symptoms, and extend her life.

The Oregon Health Plan however would not cover the costs for her chemotherapy prescription, but sent her a letter saying they would instead pay for assisted suicide drugs.

Statistics show that, as with welfare reform or capital punishment, the majority of the public is apparently in favour of legalising assisted suicide on the grounds they want to help those in pain. 

However, the idea that the Assisted Dying Bill is a response to pain is false.

Lord Falconer admitted this on BBC’s Daily Politics when he said that his Bill was not needed to help people in pain — because “that can be dealt with” — but to assist those who found the idea of losing their independence and having to rely on other people to be “intolerable.”

In Washington state, 61 per cent of people who opted for assisted suicide in 2013 said that being a burden was a reason to end their lives. Similarly in Oregon for the same year, 93 per cent cited “loss of autonomy.”

Feeling a burden and lacking choice and control over your own life are concepts only too familiar to disabled people, and never more so than in the current climate as the government attacks every area of our lives from income and benefits to the social care support we rely on, to our human rights.

Proponents of assisted dying in this country have cited the “unaffordable explosion of dementia and age-related illness” as reasons to change the law.

Evidence around the world shows that legalisation for one group leads to a pushing of the boundaries to bring other groups within its remit.

People with psychiatric conditions, dementia and newborns with impairments are among those killed by euthanasia in the Netherlands in increasing numbers year on year.

A “right to die” already exists in this country. There is no law against refusing medical treatment that might prolong your life.

Where that happens, doctors have a duty to ensure that patients receive proper pain relief and other symptom management.

What doesn’t exist for ill and disabled people is a right to independent living and to the support we need to take part in society with the same life chances as other people.

Before we give disabled people assistance to kill ourselves, we want the assistance to live.

In 1912, Russian revolutionary Yevgeni Preobrazhensky wrote:

“It seems to me that all suicides in circumstances of hunger and need have the undoubted character of murder... 

The question of a right to suicide will only make sense in a future society where no material motives for suicide will exist.

Only in a society that has guaranteed to all its members the means of existence will the question be appropriate.”

This remains as true today as it was then.

To support the campaign against legalisation of assisted suicide or put your name to our statement please contact  mail@dpac.uk.net. 

We will also be protesting outside Parliament on September 11 and invite everyone we can to join us.

Ellen Clifford is a member of the national steering committee at Disabled People Against Cuts.