The idea of ending one’s life is a common response to human suffering. But with care and support, it can usually be overcome. That’s why our normal response to someone who wants to end their life is to try to prevent them from committing suicide, and when they are struggling to commit suicide, we are not able to stop them. It also includes showing them that you care. Lord Falconer’s assisted dying bill, which will soon be debated in the House of Lords, represents a radical departure from this approach. It suggests situations in which one should support someone to end their own life, rather than trying to prevent someone from taking their own life. But what circumstances could justify this?
For Lord Falconer, the answer is simple. It’s a terminal disease. His bill would allow people to receive assistance in ending their lives as long as they are mentally competent and likely have less than six months to live, which they choose. There is no need to investigate the causes of their suffering, much less to address them, or to receive any care or support.
The only condition is that two doctors certify that the person is acting without undue influence or coercion and is informed of available care. One of these doctors, who in other circumstances would be trying to support a patient through their suffering to keep the patient from ending their life, instead ends up helping the patient do so.
Mr. Falconer’s bill exemplifies a highly medicalized approach to assisted dying that is almost completely unquestioned by supporters and opponents alike. He does not justify why doctors should treat someone who says they want to end their life so drastically differently just because they have a terminal illness. Instead, he suggests that such patients are primarily motivated by uncontrollable pain and other intractable symptoms, and are fundamentally different from other suicidal patients. This is not my experience. The terminally ill patients I have cared for who have considered ending their lives have the same complex problems as other suicidal patients and, most importantly, lack of access to care and support. They showed similar reactions.
Similarly, an official report from the U.S. state of Oregon, which provides the basis for the assisted dying law on which Falconer’s bill is based, found that among the most frequent concerns of terminally ill patients receiving medically assisted dying: includes psychosocial problems common to people with suicidal ideation. Loss of autonomy and dignity. Many also worry about becoming a burden to others, rather than warning of the excruciating pain and other uncontrollable symptoms that campaigners encourage people to expect and fear at the end of life. Ta.
The implications of using terminal illness to determine eligibility for assisted dying go far beyond those who actively want to end their lives. If assisted dying becomes a common medical option for terminally ill patients, everyone with a terminal illness will need to consider whether it should be their choice. Former Conservative MP Matthew Parris is one of the few supporters with what he calls the “intellectual integrity” to openly acknowledge the results. Eligible people will eventually feel pressure to take this option to avoid being treated unfairly. be a burden to others. For Paris, this is not a cause for concern, but a key attraction of this approach. Indeed, he positively welcomes the prospect that assisted dying will eventually be “considered socially responsible and ultimately encouraged by people.”
This is not a hypothetical vision; it is already beginning to become a reality. When Canada introduced medically assisted dying for people for whom “death from natural causes was reasonably foreseeable,” economists calculated the savings to the health budget. Less than five years later, access was expanded to an even broader group of patients with chronic illnesses and disabilities. Increasingly, the scheme is being proactively offered to people who do not want to end their lives when receiving a terminal diagnosis or seeking basic care and support for a disability. Medically assisted dying is legal in less than a quarter of states, and even in the United States, where it is less formalized, a significant proportion of patients who receive assisted dying do so at the expense of others. There are concerns that this may happen.
So why is this medicalized approach favored by so many people who consider themselves compassionate and progressive? , few people seem to understand that requesting it from a doctor is inevitable. Ending a life is not a medical procedure and no medical knowledge or skill is required to deliver standard lethal doses of toxic chemicals. However, this approach was first proposed in the 1930s, at the height of the eugenics movement, by Dr. C. Killick Millard, a member of the Eugenics Society and founder of what is now known as Dignity in Dying. Since then, no objections have been raised.
This heritage-free approach to assisted dying would be very different from Falconer’s bill. If our motive is compassion and our purpose is to alleviate intractable suffering, then certainly qualifications include whether the person has a particular illness, disability, life expectancy, etc. decisions should be based on an assessment that someone’s suffering is intractable, rather than on an external judgment. About what makes life worth living. Assisting someone’s death would then be an option of last resort, to be used only when all other options for supporting them and dealing with their suffering have been exhausted.
The court, not the doctor, is best placed to determine whether such a situation has been reached, and medical professionals will only be involved to provide relevant evidence. Specialized courts are accustomed to balancing urgency and thorough consideration in life-or-death decisions, and may be able to make timely decisions when needed for someone nearing the end of life.
In terms of management, new non-clinical professional roles are being established to provide access to lethal chemicals for the small number of people who are likely to need help in ending their lives. There is a possibility that This will ensure complete separation of assisted dying and medical care, protecting patients, health services and wider society from the harmful consequences of their intertwining.
Our politicians will vote for Falconer’s bill in good conscience. People who are determined to legalize assisted dying at all costs will vote yes. Those who support the principle of assisted dying and are serious about learning lessons from other countries should vote no and demand a fundamentally different approach.
