Liam Gibson, blogpost 

Members of Parliament who want to legalise assisted suicide cannot count on the support of the Government but must bring forward a Private Members’ Bill if they want a change in the law. That was the message from James Cartlidge, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice,[1] after an intense three-hour debate of a petition calling for “legislation to allow assisted dying for adults who are terminally ill and have mental capacity”.

That debate, which took place on Monday 4 July, was called in response to an online petition supported by the voluntary euthanasia lobby group, Dignity in Dying. Since the e-petition gathered 155,805 signatures, the Government was required to respond to it, and the matter was also tabled for a Westminster Hall debate.

A heavy emphasis on emotive stories

Over 30 MPs spoke, and around 20 of them called on the Government to establish an inquiry to consider a change in the law or to allow Parliament the opportunity to vote on it. Throughout the debate, there was a heavy emphasis on emotive stories from people who had lost loved ones to terminal illnesses or degenerative diseases. Several speakers insisted that palliative care could relieve pain but not eliminate suffering. Families, they argued, were left with post-traumatic stress disorder by the experience. Others spoke about individuals who had chosen to end their lives at the Dignitas assisted suicide facility in Zurich, Switzerland. Some MPs argued that in a “decent country” it would not be necessary to leave family and friends behind in order to choose when and how you are to die.[2] Others claimed that under the current law those who were wealthy enough could travel to Switzerland while the less well-off were forced to take matters into their own hands without “sufficient protection or support”.

Dismissing fears of vulnerbale pople 

Despite highlighting stories of people taking their own lives, several MPs insisted that that option was not the same as suicide and implied that it was insulting for their opponents to use the term “assisted suicide” rather than “assisted dying”. They also rejected the idea that vulnerable people might face coercion.

In response to this point, Rachel Hopkins, Labour MP for Luton South, said: “As a humanist, I believe that people are fundamentally good, so I struggle to accept some of the caricatures of people being cynical with their loved ones at the end of life.” Christine Jardine Lib Dem MP for Edinburgh West was equally dismissive:

“On the point of elderly people feeling pressured to accept an assisted death for the sake of their family, life is precious and I believe it is at its most precious when we know we are about to lose it. The thought that anyone would say, ‘Well, I have to do this because my family wants it’ is astonishing. I do not believe for a minute that that is what this debate is about.”

In fact, 53.1% of people killed by assisted suicide in Oregon in 2020 gave fear of being a burden on others as the reason for ending their lives.

Remarkably, Matt Hancock, the MP for Suffolk West and Boris Johnson’s former Health Secretary, claimed: “According to polls, 86% of people living with a disability are in favour of a change”. He did not say which opinion polls he was referring to.

Setting the stage for the real debate and a vote on proposed legislation 

Although outnumbered by almost two to one, the opponents of legalisation presented compelling arguments based on evidence from jurisdictions where assisted suicide and euthanasia are currently practised. They argued there was no need for a change in the law, since, under the Health and Care Act 2022, palliative care will become a core service in the NHS. They warned that experience in other countries showed that palliative care is undermined. It was easier and more economical for a state to provide lethal drugs to patients than good palliative care. The other side, however, believed that good palliative care and assisted suicide could exist side by side. However, it was clear that no matter how effective such care might become, certain concerns of the assisted suicide lobby could not be addressed by means of palliative care. Central to the debate was the issue of personal autonomy. Rachel Hopkins summed this up by stating: “Assisted dying reform is a matter of freedom of choice at the end of life.”

Who are we to deny others that choice? asked Lucy Allan, Conservative MP for Telford. “I deeply respect the religious views of others on all subjects,” she continued, “and it is their right to express their views and live them out. However, in a liberal democracy, the religious views of some do not restrict the rights and freedom of others, and so it is with this issue.”

As supporters of the petition pointed out, several more jurisdictions have introduced assisted suicide since it was last discussed by the House of Commons in 2015 when a Bill introduced by Labour MP Rob Marris was defeated by 330 votes to 118. Nevertheless, the Government reiterated its refusal to take up the petition’s call for a change in the law. Whether this remains the policy under Boris Johnson’s successor remains to be seen.

This event, which was just three hours long, has merely set the stage for the real debate and a vote on proposed legislation which is bound to follow – so what does it tell us about the arguments the assisted suicide lobby is likely to make? That is what will be considered in the second part of this commentary.

What the Westminster Hall debate shows us about the campaign to legalise assisted suicide

On 4 July, MPs debated a petition calling on the UK Government to “bring forward legislation to allow assisted dying for adults who are terminally ill and have mental capacity”.

The fact that the assisted suicide lobby is capable of gathering sufficient signatures on a petition to have its cause debated in Parliament shows that it’s well organised. It also has the support of a substantial number of MPs who are prepared to press for a change in the law. The arguments presented by the 20 MPs who spoke in favour of this proposal provide an insight into the rationale and the tactics which they believe will result in a change in the current law.

International spread of assisted suicide 

In 2019, assisted suicide was legalised in New Zealand by popular vote. Since then it has spread across all six states in Australia and has continued to expand in the United States and Canada. These developments have convinced supporters of assisted suicide that what Dignity in Dying calls “the unstoppable march of progress overseas” makes its introduction to the UK inevitable.

The arguments presented during the debate showed an overreliance on highly emotive personal accounts. These stories are intended to generate sympathy for the terminally ill and their families. Anyone daring to suggest that such anecdotal evidence can contribute very little to a thorough examination of the issues risks coming across as uncaring. This special pleading gives the views and wishes of those calling for assisted suicide greater importance than those opposed to it. Their status as victims ensures that the veracity of their claims is beyond challenge.

Even a routine investigation by the police into a case of suicide to rule out the possibility of foul play is presented as cruel and unnecessary. There is a legal imperative for such deaths to be properly investigated, but supporters of assisted suicide consider this unwarranted and unjust. If police can be pressured into turning a blind eye to cases of assisted suicide, then the current law will become unenforceable even if the legislation remains unchanged.

Suicide lobby's manipulation of langauge

Similarly, the assisted suicide lobby has manipulated language. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society was founded in 1935, but after more than 70 years it changed its name to Dignity in Dying. The term “voluntary euthanasia” was dropped in favour of “assisted suicide”. Now this too has been replaced by the highly ambiguous term “assisted dying” – a label that could encompass everything from palliative care to active euthanasia.

Many of the arguments of the assisted suicide lobby mirror those successfully used by abortion advocates. For example, they claim that the current law disproportionately hurts the poor. The better off, they say, will always be able to travel to Switzerland while the economically disadvantaged are forced by the law to take matters into their own hands.

And as with abortion, arguments against the legalisation of assisted suicide are frequently dismissed on the pretext that they reflect a personal religious perspective. This happened during the Westminster Hall debate even though no one who spoke against a change in the law used religious arguments. Sir Stephen Timms, the Labour MP for East Ham, quoted a message sent to MPs ahead of the debate by the National Secular Society that illustrates this point:

“Dire warnings about the coercion of disabled, elderly, sick or the depressed can mask true motivations for opposing a change in the law…disguising religious objections as secular concerns, rather than seeking ways to mitigate potential risks of legalising assisted dying, opponents can exaggerate the risks, weaponising them to spread fear.”

An attack on human dignity affects humanity as a whole

In fact, the belief that innocent human life is inviolable is not a religious concept. This principle has been respected by various cultures across the globe and throughout history. The Hippocratic Oath, which was drafted in the fifth century BC and became the foundation of Western medical ethics, rejected both abortion and voluntary euthanasia. This tradition was reaffirmed in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Code of Medical Ethics adopted by the World Medical Assembly as a response to Nazi Germany’s euthanasia programme. The WMA’s Declaration of Geneva bound doctors to “maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat”, and not to use their medical knowledge “contrary to the laws of humanity”. The legalisation of assisted suicide in Belgium and the Netherlands has, however, paved the way for the euthanasia of disabled infants and dementia patients. Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP for Devizes, warned that this could also happen in the UK.

“Members who think we can prevent people from being put on the pathway to assisted dying by good drafting, or because doctors are good people – obviously, they are – should think about the “do not resuscitate” scandal we had during the pandemic, and about the Liverpool care pathway, and then suggest there is no risk.”

Yet, neither the very real threat to vulnerable people nor the advances in palliative care and pain relief are likely to convince those who share the outlook of Andy Slaughter, the Labour MP for Hammersmith, when he said: 

“I understand the strongly held views of those who oppose assisted dying, but I am a firm believer in freedom of choice and bodily autonomy – issues that have come to the fore in the wake of the reversal of Roe vs Wade, and not just in the US.”

From this point of view, autonomy overrides the objective value of human life and human dignity. If the assisted suicide lobby succeeds in making this the basis of the law, the implications for the status of human beings collectively will be profound. Certain rights are inalienable, and this is especially true of the right to life. It cannot be abrogated regardless of individual consent. This is because an attack on human dignity not only affects the rights of individuals but humanity as a whole.