Help To Die? Or Help To Live?

Lynne Walsh writes:

The fact that this article comes with a “deadline” is not a macabre pun on its subject, but a plea to get involved with a parliamentary consultation which ends this week. The health and social care committee will look at findings from its current survey on assisted dying/suicide, and report to government. It’s worth knowing that this cross-party group of MPs has been overseeing a dozen consultations, two of which have reported while four are overdue. Others in the pipeline focus on A&E departments, and ambulance delays and strikes.

A cynic may question why such an important consultation is being done in this way. Proposals to change our laws on euthanasia are not new. MPs and MSPs had already rejected moves towards assisted suicide in 2015. Some lobbyists now claim that the government is creating a “euthanasia Groundhog Day,” continually pushed by activists who want Britain to mimic Canada in its offer of MAID — medical assistance in dying.

That phrase comes from Care: Christian Action, Research and Education, the name making clear the perspective they bring. What’s interesting is that this view is shared by some coming at this from a socialist viewpoint. As with most ethical dilemmas, language plays a big role in this debate. If “euthanasia” had become pretty well understood, the switch to “assisted dying/assisted suicide” might confuse or clarify in equal measure.

The British government is using definitions from its Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: “‘Assisted dying’ refers here to the involvement of healthcare professionals in the provision of lethal drugs intended to end a patient’s life at their voluntary request, subject to eligibility criteria and safeguards. It includes healthcare professionals prescribing lethal drugs for the patient to self-administer [‘physician-assisted suicide’] and healthcare professionals administering lethal drugs [‘euthanasia’].”

The last big push on an Assisted Dying Bill came from Baroness Molly Meacher in 2021. She — chair of the Dignity in Dying campaign — introduced it as a private member’s Bill, and it did seem to surge through towards its second reading stage, but faltered and fell after that. More than 60 peers, led by Lord Winston, rallied against it. Former health minister and chief executive of the NHS Confederation, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, during that seven-hour debate: “I remain concerned about the unintended consequences of people feeling pressurised into ending their own lives, either because of fear that they might be a burden or because relatives might seek to gain through the accelerated death of a relative.”

Another powerful voice in that session came from Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, founder of Not Dead Yet UK, and long-time campaigner for disability equality and human rights. She focused on the damaging effects such legislation could have on the lives and treatment of disabled people. The peer, who has spinal muscular atrophy, said: “It would alter society’s view of those in vulnerable circumstances by signalling that assisted suicide is something that they might or ought to consider. 

“Disabled people with terminal conditions or progressive conditions like mine are alarmed by the misleading narrative of autonomy and choice. We must not abandon those who can benefit from high-quality health and social care to the desperate temptation of assisted suicide in the guise of a compassionate choice.” 

Depending on which side you take, the Meacher Bill failed either because there wasn’t sufficient parliamentary time allowed, or because it had no fewer than 200 amendments at committee stage, or perhaps simply because it clearly didn’t have government support. Taking the opposing view is Trevor Moore, chair of campaign group My Death, My Decision, who said at the time:

“The failure of the Meacher Bill is a reflection of the government’s refusal to engage with the critical social justice issue of assisted dying. If the government will not introduce legislation in Parliament, we call upon it instead to establish a parliamentary inquiry and implement its recommendations. That way, it can remain neutral.”

Moore, who spent much of his professional career as a partner in a City law firm, and is now a humanist celebrant, recently criticised the media for running stories from Canada, where the law has been relaxed. The Daily Mail had featured the case of Les Landry, aged 65, whose fear of poverty and homelessness led him to request assisted suicide. The website of My Death, My Decision is populated with personal stories, all of them heartbreaking. Some feature people who stopped eating and drinking, in order to end their lives; others travelled to Switzerland and paid a Dignitas or similar clinic for a lethal dose of drugs. The cost of these clinic interventions is estimated at £10,000.

It’s clear that what is unfolding here is a series of greater divisions in society. “Choice” is not choice, when it depends solely on your personal income. It is not choice, if part of a decision to end your life is because you fear poverty, or do not want to burden your loved ones. It is not freedom of choice if you experience the assault on our health and welfare services, and fear that you may not survive their extinction.

One activist bringing much-needed clarity here is Ellen Clifford. With a renowned track record in campaigning, she is an executive member of Disabled People Against Cuts, and author of The War on Disabled People: Capitalism, Welfare and the Making of a Human Catastrophe. That’s a book which should be read by any politician or lobbyist expounding on this discussion. She reflects on the U-turn by a former health secretary:

“It’s no coincidence that Matt Hancock changed his views on assisted suicide — which led to this inquiry — during the pandemic. It also, sadly, fails to surprise me that the Tories’ solution to the threat of the NHS being overwhelmed and the need to ‘ration’ treatment is to assist people in prematurely ending their lives, rather than to invest in adequately funded health services.”

We discuss whether the debate is, in reality, balanced, and inclusive of key voices. Clifford says: “Disabled activists and our organisations have been aware for a long time that — with the media giving little if no space for our voices on the assisted suicide question, with the lobby in favour being so well resourced and with people on the left confusing the question with pro-choice arguments — it is only a matter of time before the legislation passes.

“The fact that the angle the inquiry is taking, in looking at healthcare aspects of the assisted suicide question, suggests that the matter of whether legislation is ethically right is no longer in scope. That is deeply troubling because it takes us many steps closer to legislation becoming reality.”

I ask Clifford what she thinks is at the heart of the arguments coming from pro-euthanasia lobbyists. “There are so many stereotypes about disabled people. We’ve all heard these things, ‘You must be so brave. How can you go on?’ “That’s what’s driving this — the idea that disabled people’s lives must be so awful.

“It’s not so much about pain — nobody needs to live in pain — it’s about autonomy, the idea of being dependent on other people, the fear of losing control. Society should be doing so much more — for one thing, fully funding palliative care. We should not consider any form of assisted suicide until everyone has the opportunity to live a fulfilled life in the first place.” 

The current consultation ends on Friday, January 20. It could take only a matter of minutes to complete. The term “deadline,” by the way, is thought to come from the American civil war, when prison guards drew a line beyond which prisoners may not move — or even fall. If they did, they were shot.

All of the campaign groups mentioned here have bags of information on offer. Some of it, naturally, has the whiff of propaganda; lobbying can be a slick enterprise. If we’re to participate in the “assisted dying” debate, as we surely must, we need to listen to the voices of people who are disabled, ill, desperate, fearful, or oppressed.

As socialists, we ask ourselves: is society made up of individuals, or is it not the manifestation of the interrelations between us? We survive and thrive together, or not at all. We are inextricably linked. If our fellow humans feel the need to ask for assistance to die, is this really a plea for assistance to live? 

To make a submission to the inquiry visit bit.ly/AssistedDyingParliament.