Assisted dying: ending life or shortening death?

On Friday 29 November, MPs will vote on the long-debated issue of assisted dying, allowing Parliament the chance to ensure dignity and care are put at the forefront of end-of-life care in England and Wales. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, introduced by Kim Leadbeater, is backed by two-thirds of the country, but as influential political figures like Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, and mother and father of the House, Diane Abbott and Sir Edward Leigh come out in opposition to the bill, has the country got it wrong?

Leadbeater’s bill seeks to allow terminally ill adults with under six months of life left to request and be provided with assistance in ending their own life. The bill’s stringent safeguards are second to none, with patients required to pass through layers of approval involving two doctors, the High Court, and two periods of reflection, all to ensure that the patient is making an informed decision free from external coercion or pressure.

Under the UK’s current ban on assisted dying, terminally ill patients are not afforded the dignity or bodily autonomy that they deserve. They can often suffer harrowing deaths, drawn out inhumanely, or resort to suicide through means such as hoarding medication. On a recent The News Agents episode, Leadbeater described a conversation she had with a man whose wife was diagnosed with incurable cancer. She received great palliative care but spent her final five days choking to death. In her desperation for the pain and suffering to end, she begged her husband to suffocate her with a pillow, but he could not, for fear of that scene being her last memory before death. Stories like these lay bare the failings of the current UK law, and demonstrate the necessity of reform.

Whilst some terminally ill UK patients choose to travel to Switzerland – the only jurisdiction that provides non-residents with access to assisted death – many do not have the money or energy to make the journey. For those who do, the process is often risky and terrifying for them and their families. Those who help their loved ones die with dignity are subject to the possibility of prosecution, meaning family members are often faced with deciding between taking on the personal risks of accompanying their loved one to Switzerland or leaving them to carry out their difficult final few days on their own. The new bill would put an end to family members making the lonely flight home from Zürich, balancing their newfound grief with the fear of being met by police officers upon arrival in the UK.

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently said that if passed, the bill would provide a “state death service”, and raised concerns of a “slippery slope towards death on demand”. It is believed that Mahmood’s opinion has been formed by her religion after she stated that her opposition comes from her “unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life”. Whilst it is necessary to engage religious viewpoints on this issue, much like within the abortion debate, individual beliefs should not hold the right to another’s bodily autonomy. Those who do oppose assisted dying, whether on the grounds of religion or not, will maintain the ability to never interact with the process. This includes medical professionals, as they can opt out of involvement under Leadbeater’s bill without facing penalties from their employers or other institutions.

Mahmood argues that the bill could pave the way for the eventual legalisation of euthanasia, a practice distinct from assisted dying. Unlike assisted dying, euthanasia can, in some cases, be carried out non-voluntarily, such as when a patient is in a coma and unable to provide consent. This argument has no grounding in the jurisdiction we can observe around the world. Whilst bills introduced to allow assisted dying on the grounds of ‘undue suffering’ have presented such challenges, those that mirror Leadbeater’s terminally ill requirement have not once been followed by the legislature changing to encompass more potential patients.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting poses a second criticism of the bill regarding the potential of terminally ill people feeling “guilt-tripped” into ending their lives. Fear of burdening family is prevalent amongst the terminally ill, but Leadbeater’s bill accounts for this fact, containing the most robust safeguarding measures of any of the other 31 assisted dying jurisdictions in the world. The thorough process of approval that it lays out requires rigorous and multi-layered probing of patients in order to ensure the uncovering of any potential pressure or coercion, or other exemplifying factors. When speaking about the issue, Leadbeater has highlighted that currently, we check for coercion after someone has taken their own life. The layers upon layers of safeguarding that would be implemented under this bill provide a significant improvement to the all-too-late processes we currently have.

As the chance of a transformation of end-of-life care in England and Wales into a dignified, kinder process looms over the country, I hope that MPs will vote to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society hold dominion over their own bodies. The last time MPs voted on the subject was nearly a decade ago. Will they again allow a decade’s worth of cruel and unnecessary deaths, or will they ensure that a decision any of us could find ourselves facing is available to all those who require it?

Words by: Lily Ogilvie