MPs take stand against assisted suicide

MPs have spoken out against legalising assisted suicide during a debate in Parliament’s Westminster Hall.

They were responding to a petition calling for the law to be changed to allow doctors to help patients deemed to be terminally ill kill themselves.

While a number of MPs supported removing safeguards, others objected, highlighting how the current law protects vulnerable people.

‘Irresistible pressure’

In a powerful speech, Labour MP Sir Stephen Timms said if the practice were legalised by Parliament, “we would impose an awful moral dilemma on every conscientious frail elderly person nearing the end of their life. We have probably all known a number of such people.

“They have a lot of anxieties at that stage of their life. They worry very much about being a burden on their children, needing care from them and consuming resources that their children would otherwise inherit.

“If ending their life early were legally permissible, many who do not want to end their life would feel under great, probably irresistible, pressure to do so. There is no way to stop that happening.”

He added the Government should not legalise the practice as a cost-cutting exercise and should instead spend more on palliative care.

‘Best support available’

Sally-Ann Hart MP warned of the adverse impact of a law change on doctor-patient relationships seen in Canada.

Clinicians there have reported that the introduction of its assisted suicide and euthanasia legislation “diverts resources away from crucial palliative care services”.

Danny Kruger, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Dying Well, was stronger still, asking: “I know doctors are good people who want the best, but if we force them to make utilitarian decisions about the best use of resources, won’t they push people in this direction?

“As well as the pressure on the healthcare system to take this route, I worry even more about the pressure on patients themselves to request assisted dying if it is an option. It will be an option for almost everybody approaching death—that is the proposal.”

‘Hurry up and die’

Kruger continued: “Over half the people in countries where assisted dying is legal choose it because they feel they are a burden to their family. Tragically, a lot also say that they are lonely.

“Is that not terrible—people getting the state to help kill them because they do not want to be a burden on a family that never visits them?

“Talk to any hospice manager about relatives and they will quietly confirm it. There are a lot of people who want granny or grandpa to hurry up and die.”

Manipulation and coercion

Peter Gibson, a former family solicitor who often handled the affairs of those at the end of their lives, spoke of his own experience visiting the sick and infirm on nursing homes and hospitals.

He said this “deeply personal and private role” in speaking to people about the “most intimate of family matters” often allowed him to observe those closest to them.

“Although the overwhelming majority of families I met in such circumstances had their loved one’s comfort and wellbeing at heart, I have seen the most rapacious of family members seeking to manipulate.

“I fear that even with all the safeguards possible, such individuals could exercise the most sinister of coercion were we to permit assisted dying.”

Vague

The petition being considered by MPs used the term ‘assisted dying’, but Robin Millar MP noted that this language is flawed.

He called it “an undefined term, without clear meaning”, explaining: “The proactive ending of one’s own life, by consent or otherwise, in law is suicide—in this case, presumably, by the self-administration of lethal drugs.”

He agreed with others who raised concerns that legalisation will lead to vulnerable people feeling pressure to end their own lives.

“That is not a message I believe we should send or have bound into the fabric of our society through law; nor is it a duty that should bind those in the caring profession, which is driven by the preservation of life.”