I am a supporter of the principle of legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill. You may know this concept by other names – assisted dying is currently all the rage among advocates, although euthanasia is often used by critics. But I also believe in calling a spade a spade, and in plain English what is currently under discussion is assisted suicide.

By this I mean the idea that someone facing a terminal illness should be allowed to choose their own death in order to reduce pain or suffering, and that someone who agrees to provide adequate means to do so should not to be prosecuted.

I support this right because I believe that consenting and informed adults should have the freedom to decide their own lives and control their own bodies. It seems wrong that the law requires terminally ill people to suffer more and more than they want. He is envious of forcing their families to choose between denying their loved one’s most difficult request or facing criminal conviction.

More often than we care to admit, people suffer horribly because the law insists they must, or take their own lives in painful, risky, clandestine ways because the law forbids them a safer way.

So, in principle, assisted suicide should be legalized.

However, I also believe in thoughtful legislation, because I know that the unintended consequences of bad, rushed, or ill-conceived laws are all too real.

For this reason, while I support the principle, I cannot agree that this crucial problem should be solved by the currently proposed method: a private member’s billthe text of which will be published today by Kim Leadbeater MP.

We have too many laws and too few good laws, even when we legislate with the support of government legal teams and extensive consultation. The Bill attempts to provide safeguards, but the capacity of any legislation to miss potential loopholes, produce unintended consequences or be overtaken by social or technological change is huge.

If it is difficult to legislate well, say, taxing biscuits, then a law dealing with life and death, medical ethics, the philosophical issue of capacity to consent in complex circumstances and the many safeguards required is worth more time, more consultation , more open. debate and much more control than common or garden legislation. A private member’s bill is insufficient – ​​an issue that needs more attention will instead be less. This subject, of all subjects, should not be rushed or solved on the fly.

Even a brief review reveals the complexity and sensitivity of assisted suicide legislation. However, the potential for pressure to be exerted on vulnerable people by family members, contentious debates on mental capacity and recent scandals of abuse of the elderly and disabled children in care institutions. all show how key wording and warranties are.

The proposed measures in the bill, such as long prison sentences for causing someone by “dishonesty, coercion or pressure” to kill themselves, show that the authors want to address these risks, but seem difficult to apply in practice to family businesses held in prison. doors, especially where the only witness would have died.

The experience of Canada’s housekeeper (Medical Assistance in Dying) laws should give pause to anyone who imagines that legislating for such extreme circumstances is easy. The intention is to reduce the suffering of the terminally ill – but worryingly more than a third of Canadians who died under MAI said that reducing the burden of their illness on their loved ones is a factor in their decision.

Read on

In the Netherlands, the slippery slope argument has come true: it is now legal to provide assisted suicide there for chronic mental illness. More than 100 Dutch people did it last year. We have yet to scratch the surface of this issue in a national debate that has hardly taken place; how do we intend to prevent ourselves from sliding down the slippery slope?

There is no inherent reason to assume that the UK will do a better job than Canada or the Netherlands. Indeed, there is specific reason to fear that we may encounter greater difficulties.

Any country should run the risk of a family pressuring a patient to commit suicide or a patient being persuaded to end their life based on an imagined duty to reduce the “burden” on their loved ones.

In the UK, the guilt of placing a “burden” on the NHS is also added to the mix. We have found in the pandemic that “protecting the NHS” is the most powerful and persuasive message any spin doctor could devise to persuade people to curtail their own rights, even at great personal cost. It was extremely effective.

Now apply this powerful consideration to assisted suicide. How confident can we be that the idea of ​​costing money, using a bed and taking up the time and resources of the health service will not arise in the minds of vulnerable people in the same way that we know the fear of taking up the time and care of children or their husband’s?

One of the safeguards proposed to reduce emotional pressure is for the patient to give consent away from family members; but this fails to address the risk that institutions may impose their own pressures. Anyone who has dealt with a vulnerable patient in a hospital or care home can attest to this.

As KC veteran Alex Ruck Keene arguesthe issue requires consideration beyond the clear high-profile cases with articulate patients: “The law cannot work for individuals. The law must work for everyone.”

None of this is Kim Leadbeater’s fault. I agree with her instinct to address the injustice and cruelty of a legal position that currently insists that the terminally ill experience unnecessary suffering. But this is not the right way to solve such a risky, vital problem. It takes a lot more time, a lot more thought, a lot more control – and even then an answer may not be clear.