Assisted suicide: Doing no harm?

COMMENT

It’s almost 80 years since our National Health Service came into being. In the words of the 1946 Act it was a service “designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people”.

Arguably it was a statement of intent that has its roots in the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm” dating back to somewhere around the 4^th century BC.

Recently, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater tabled an amendment to change this role forever. No longer should the NHS seek only to improve our health, it should also seek to end life.

This is what awaits if her assisted suicide Bill becomes law. It will allow adults in England and Wales deemed to be terminally ill and with less than six months to live to get help to kill themselves.

The Committee scrutinising the Bill has now finished its deliberations. It’s expected that on 16 May, the House of Commons (which has already voted for the principle of the Bill) will consider the latest version of the Bill at what’s called Report Stage, paving the way for another vote, possibly the same day.

But is it any better than the version that even many of those who backed it at 2^nd Reading raised concerns about?

Well, I have to tell you that the Committee has rejected multiple safeguards. Given that it was appointed by Kim Leadbeater herself, perhaps that isn’t surprising.

Removing end of life protections, changing the founding document of the NHS, normalising assisted suicide would be a tragedy; a terrible win for despair over hope.

Protections for the homeless and those with Down’s syndrome: rejected. A prohibition on encouraging or coercing someone into assisted suicide: rejected. A requirement to meet a palliative care consultant: rejected. A requirement that there must be ‘reasonable certainty’ over the six-month diagnosis: rejected. Even requiring capacity to include the ability to understand key details was rejected. Medics opposed to assisted suicide do not get a proper opt out, neither do hospices who could also lose funding if they choose care over killing. And there are many more examples.

In contrast, the Committee hadn’t even begun its line-by-line scrutiny when Leadbeater announced she was axing what she had marketed as her ‘ultimate safeguard’ – sign-off for assisted suicide applications from a High Court judge. It was a move typical of the whole approach to this Bill.

The Committee itself is disproportionately weighted towards those who support assisted suicide. During oral evidence, the witnesses were similarly heavily skewed towards those in favour of the Bill. The Royal College of Psychiatrists was initially excluded, and opposing witnesses subsequently found their evidence misrepresented by pro-Bill MPs.

After pledging to ‘do no harm’ the ancient Hippocratic Oath goes on: “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.” But of course this is exactly what will happen.

The fact that technically it is the person themselves taking the life-ending drugs is mere sophistry. The doctor can suggest assisted suicide, provide the drugs for assisted suicide and assist the actual taking of them – even to the extent of guiding the patient’s hand with the drugs to their mouth.

Removing end of life protections, changing the founding document of the NHS, normalising assisted suicide would be a tragedy; a terrible win for despair over hope.

In their moment of greatest need terminally ill patients should not be made to feel that it would be better for all concerned if they were dead.

As Christians, we know that because every human being is made in God’s image, every human being has inherent value, regardless of age, ability or autonomy. God gives life, he sustains it, only he has the authority to take it away. All people are valuable, no matter how young, old, disabled or ill they might be.