The Assisted Dying Bill: An Imperfect Step Toward Solving an Impossible Problem
08/04/25
Embedded Files
DEBATE IN THE COMMONS, IMAGE: HOUSE OF COMMONS
There are some issues in politics which defy any sense of partisanship or prior loyalty, and assisted dying is certainly one of them. It is, without a doubt, the most nuanced political issue I have ever had to wrangle with and to this day, I am plagued by doubt and guilt due to the conclusion I have reached. Following extensive research, having watched hours of interviews from politicians and experts on both sides of this debate, I have concluded that when the Assisted Dying Bill returns to Parliament later this year, it must pass.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is an incredibly nuanced piece of legislation. The bill only gives the option of an assisted death to those who only have 6 months left to live, are mentally capable of taking the decision, and have the approval of two different doctors. These safeguards are paramount for a system that the public can have confidence in and must constantly be up for review and tightening if the bill does, in fact, pass.
A move that has brought about great criticism in recent months is the removal of the requirement of High Court approval for every case where the Act is applied. This initially caused me great concern, as I feared this would only be the start of the rolling back of the strict safeguards that had allowed me to support the initial draft of the bill. However, having listened to Kim Leadbeater‘s reasoning and examined the new proposal for a panel of experts to take the High Court Judge‘s place, I am satisfied that the system will include ample safeguards to limit the abuse of the act as much as possible. If the act remains fundamentally unchanged from this current form, I believe it to be a very reasonable first attempt to tackle this near-impossible issue.
A frequent criticism of this bill is that it will create an unequal system that is rife with abuse. This is not an unreasonable point; no system can be perfect, and when that system is a literal issue of life and death, anything short of perfection rightly causes alarm bells to ring. My response to this, however, is that it is hardly as if we have a perfect system currently. There are countless stories of people having to take matters into their own hands or having loved ones do the unthinkable, leaving them open to prosecution just for putting their beloved out of unimaginable physical and mental distress. Furthermore, for it to be done in a more official manner, you must pay vast amounts of money to travel to Switzerland, making it something only the elite and the wealthy can afford to do. All of this being said, I do not dismiss the very rational concerns of those fearful of replacing one imperfect system for another; I just do not view it as a reason not to try and help those tragic individuals whom the current system lets down so badly.
THE SPEAKER, LINDSAY HOYLE, OVERSEES COMMONS DEBATE, IMAGE: HOUSE OF COMMONS
The risk that terminally ill people will be coerced into an early death they do not want, or they choose one only as they feel they are a burden to their family, is an argument frequently brought up by its critics. These concerns are perfectly natural and are addressed within the act. Those guilty of coercion will face 14 years in prison, and there are repeated safeguards to ensure that impartial advice is given and any signs of coercion are immediately flagged. This system can never be foolproof, with coercion often being hard to detect and even harder to prosecute. If necessary, I would support further safeguards and the most thorough of screening processes to ensure as much as possible that the individual has decided of their own accord without undue external influence.
The final criticism it is important to acknowledge is that of various religious communities. Recently, a letter was published, signed by various faith leaders (including the Chief Rabbi and Archbishop of Westminster), stating their opposition to the Assisted Dying Bill. They view the act of any human taking a life for any reason as directly defying God, as only he has the right to give and take life. While I respect the theological grounding of this belief, I do not believe this has a high degree of relevance in the national debate. Britain does not pass laws based on religious teachings, and nor should it. It is against our principles to impose the beliefs of one or many faiths on those who do not believe in them. While I’m sure one’s faith will shape an individual’s attitude should they ever be in the position to use this act, it should not shape the provision that is offered by the state.
Having discussed the legislative nuances of this act and the main arguments of its critics, it is now important to refocus on the people who this act will affect. I can not imagine a situation where I would wish to end my own life prematurely; it is not something I am capable of properly imagining, and that is exactly why I support this bill. For someone who is faced with a terminal illness to get to the point where they are in so much pain and distress that they tell their loved ones that they wish to leave them forever is such a horrific scenario to imagine, I feel I have no right to pass judgement nor prevent them from doing so. All of that being said, I do not claim to have the objectively ‘correct’ view on this issue, nor do I condemn those who have come to different conclusions, but it is my sincere hope that this Parliament will be the one to grasp this issue and make meaningful change for those who urgently need it.
Google Sites
Report abuse