Why do people support a change in the law on assisted suicide? According to Professor David Albert Jones, director of the Anscombe Centre for Bioethics in Oxford, the most common reasons are; avoiding a bad death involving pain, allowing choice, and to provide safeguards for something which is already happening.
Professor Jones spoke recently to over 70 people at a meeting organised by the SPUC branch in Nottingham, who had travelled from across the east midlands to hear him speak. In the audience was the Bishop of Nottingham, Patrick McKinney. Professor Jones gave key arguments to help people in SPUC’s campaign to defeat the assisted suicide bill introduced by Kim Leadbeater MP.
Assisted suicide involves the deliberate ending of someone’s life. Professor Jones pointed out that all developed societies have a legal and ethical prohibition for intentionally ending life, for good reasons.
Challenging the claim that that permitting assisted suicide would promote autonomy, Professor Jones emphasised that, in reality, it does not. Instead, it requires someone else to be involved in a person’s death. It also leads people who are ill to feel a burden to others – relatives, friends, society. Once assisted suicide has been legalised, no matter how restrictive it is at the start, eligibility soon expands and ‘safeguards’ are no longer safe.
Assisted suicide contradicts the purpose of medicine
Assisted suicide is not a part of medicine. We do not have to extend life but it is not the purpose of medicine intentionally to kill; this contradicts its whole purpose. This is especially true of palliative care.
In countries where assisted suicide has become part of the medical system there is no reason NOT to recommend suicide as a form of treatment. Indeed, in Canada, there is a duty on doctors to raise it with sick people as an optional treatment, even if the patient has not suggested it themselves!
Professor Jones related the case of a Canadian military veteran who was sick and homeless, and who was encouraged to consider assisted suicide as a solution to his desperation. There are also many cases of AS being forced on individuals against their will, because they were considered unable to provide consent (e.g. due to dementia).
Pointing to other countries, Professor Jones cited Canada and Colombia, where assisted suicide is no longer just for those who are terminally ill. In the Netherlands and Belgium, it has been extended to minors and in Oregon to non-residents. The practice has been expanded to include dementia in the Netherlands, and anorexia in USA. The logic is clear: if the purpose of assisted suicide is to reduce suffering and to increase choice, why should it be reserved only for those who are terminally ill?
“The clear evidence from Belgium is that once the barrier of legalisation is passed, the practice tends to develop a dynamic of its own… the only secure way to avoid these consequences is to resist calls to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide and instead invest in palliative care… while reemphasising the preciousness of human life”, said Professor Jones.
SPUC comment
Dr John Edwards, chair of the Nottingham SPUC branch said: ‘This powerful talk was well received. At the end we were encouraged to go away and take action to defend the lives of vulnerable people. Many of the MPs in parliament are newcomers to the role. Many are still undecided on this important issue.
‘We can wait until assisted suicide has become legal and then fight to repeal it; or we can act now to stop it becoming law. One of the most effective things we can do is to contact out MPs and ask them for a meeting on this issue; or if this is not possible, to write to them expressing our concerns. SPUC has provided helpful tools for us to take action.’
Go to https://www.spuc.org.uk/assistedsuicideuk