Assisted dying - should assisted dying be legalised in the UK? Editor's Poll: vote now

We need to talk about it for a couple of good reasons: 1) we are a civilised, developed, intelligent, democratic society; 2) a Yorkshire MP - Kim Leadbeater, MP for Spen Valley - is putting forward a members’ bill today which means that for the first time in nine years, MPs will get a free vote on whether or not to legalise the taking of another human life in circumstances that permit as much.

Pro-choice, liberty, freedoms campaigners will tell you that a change in the law is one that would afford dignity to suffering; compassion to those in pain; relief to slow-motion grievers whose spirits and souls are crushed by the spectacle of agonising decline, giving their everything in an attempt to make the end bearable. It is a compelling case; one that makes perfect, rational sense … until you return to the immutable fact that this is a conversation about human beings.

Pro-life campaigners have made the case for not changing the law in the name of choice, pointing out that doing so runs the risk of the whole thing morphing from a right to die to a duty to die, with those who find themselves needing palliative care feeling they are a burden whose loved ones, and wider society, would be better off without them. Though, that is not the only tenet to the pro-life case; if we are that civilised, compassionate, intelligent society, pro-life campaigners say, then we must acknowledge that nobody has the right to end the life of another human being. What is necessary is a well-funded, properly staffed (by happy, well-trained and well-paid staff) care sector that is able to offer the very best palliative care in the community service, one that moves through to the same quality of end-of-life care in a comfortable hospice that is funded by more than the tireless efforts of heroic volunteers in modest charity shops.

Also, if I may pop on the cynical goggles through which journalists are encouraged to look when going about our business on your behalf, I am worried that hard-pressed policy and law makers exploit this bill in an attempt to take a short-cut on investing in and improving the care - social care in particular - sector in this country. Much cheaper to offer a way out of being than provide ongoing care. You may say that is too cynical of me … I say it is more likely an unpalatable pragmatism that those charged with solving the care conundrum have weighed up privately, but for very obvious reasons could never articulate publicly. And this is where the concerns of the likes of the Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Vincent Nichols crystallise; he is worried that the right to die, if enacted in law, not only evolves into a duty to die but an expectation to kill. Neither you nor I are naive enough to think that all family members are benevolent well-wishers towards their next of kin - that we knowingly place doctors in a potential pressure cooker of nefarious intentions feels unethical to me.

Honestly, when immersed in the rationales of all sides of the debate, I find myself agreeing with them all at the same time - and I know and appreciate that means I perhaps have not made up my mind on the matter - all sides, that is, but for the ‘we give cats and dogs a better send off than some humans’ brigade. This is a juvenile perspective that belittles humanity. You would not expect me to treat you like a dog in life, so why should I treat you like a dog in death? Let us not cheapen the contemplations of our consciences by equating human life to that of a chihuahua.

If I may offer my own view, or at least where I think I err towards - and my view in no way reflects that of the newspaper I am fortunate enough to edit - then I hope no change in the law comes about. Not for the first time, I do not envy those who will vote on the matter. Somehow, it feels unfair to ask MPs to play God with life and death. The supporters of assisted dying offer seductive, alluring words: compassion, care, dignity, choice. Objectors draw on similarly powerful vocabulary: cruel, uncaring, spiteful. More extreme objectors believe it murderous.

One experience of my own - and, again, please know that I am not suggesting that one example of one occurrence in my own life should or even could influence any outcome in relation to the assisted dying bill - involves our family having witnessed first-hand what appeared to be the terminal decline of a loved one, who, through a combination of stubborn courage and that desire to not be a burden - all feelings amplified to screaming point by agonising pain that seared through to his core - if given a VIP pass to a pain-free Elysian Field may well have taken it. Today, thanks to medical expertise and superb palliative care, he’ll walk into my house on Christmas Day, hobbling in on his peg-leg with a smile on his face and a gift for his grandkids under his arm.

Now, I know that simply because he might have asked for the way out, he wouldn’t necessarily have got it. I understand that. But if steps towards legalising assisted dying are made today, there can be no question that unnecessarily untimely exit for so many will be more ajar than it is right now.

Do share your thoughts on this one with me: they’ll form the basis of a follow-up piece, and will undoubtedly help to enhance my understanding of assisted dying.

Take care of one another

James

—

Write to me - it’s nice to hear from you all: [email protected]

Lend a hand - we need you more than ever - https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/subscriptions

This is an online version of the editor’s regular newsletter. Not all of James’ newsletters are published as online articles as well. To ensure you don’t miss one, subscribe today to lend James and The Yorkshire Post your support > https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/subscriptions