The Coroners and Justice Bill is now going through the House. It is, in effect, two substantial Bills in one. There are various controversial aspects, though some of these have already been met by Government concessions. However, there is one amendment that has been tabled by former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that is attracting a great deal of attention.
His amendment provides that if someone helps a dying person to go abroad where assisted dying is legal it will not be an offence to facilitate them going. The terminally ill person not only has to be certified as terminally ill but also has to freely indicate their decision to go abroad for the purpose of obtaining assistance in dying.
As I recall, survey data suggest popular support for the provision. Whenever I have asked pupils on my schools visits whether they would support or oppose such a provision, there is always overwhelming support. There is, though, strong opposition and opponents are clearly getting organised. I have been receiving letters and e-mails attacking the amendment. One correspondent claims that ‘the euthanasia lobby’ are pursuing a provision that ‘could result in legislation enabling the unscrupulous to manipulate or arrange the deaths of vulnerable people whom they would like to be rid of or from whom they could inherit’. Another writes ‘Any legislation which endorses the deliberate ending of life undermines us as a society.’
The material I am getting in opposition to the clause is generally of the sort that is counter-productive: expressed in emotional terms and not well argued. However, I would be interested in readers’ views. Are there compelling arguments why I should support, or oppose, the amendment?
Granting individuals the ability to choose their death often has pernicious effects on the expectations of others. From the standpoint of family members who live in a society where euthanasia is an option, the decision to hang on and not opt for death can look incredibly selfish and can be a source of resentment. This leads to the patient, rather than making a choice based on her own level of suffering, feeling pressurized to ‘just get on with it’. The force of such attitudes is, of course, only more powerful given the asymmetrical relationship between the ill and the healthy. Arguably this is a distortion of the kind of ‘choice’ the authors of euthanasia legislation imagine taking place and which they want to allow for. I also expect this is not the kind of thing that those who are questioned in surveys have on their mind when answering the question. I seems that it might alter outcomes if they were aware of it.
I do find it interesting that we have for some decades now been on a path of telling people that the state has no business in approving their opinions/morals/sexual behaviour or orientation. That these are a private and personal matter that is not the concern or the state’s right to meddle in such personal affairs. Yet counter-intuitively the state does want to interfear in a matter – assisted dying – that could not be more personal.
The Suicide Act is rather extraordinary as, to my knowledge, it is now and always has been the only offence where you can be prosecuted (and/or jailed) for assisting an act that is itself not a criminal offence. It’s such an obviously invidious position that we have seen the CPS/DPP effectively ‘repeal’ it by turning a blind eye to prominent cases.
As far as the polls go what you say is correct – the public has long been ahead of parliament with all the major polling companies showing levels of public support for rewriting this whole area of legislation. So taking just one company’s results we have support for assisted suicide but most interestingly support for quite a step beyond the present debate about immunity for the families. The public strongly backed (85%) the decision not to prosecute the family of Daniel James. His case was not that of terminal illness but physical injury which suggests the public position is shifting further in this direction.
On both assisted dying and the immunity of relatives I sit quite comfortably with public opinion against the present law. I take and especially dim view of religious groups (the most vocal defenders of the present law) foisting their world-view and religious (real or interpreted) rules upon those who have freely chosen not to hold to such tenets. There seems something unacceptable in allowing such views to control not just adherents own lives but others who must suffer in pain or find their relatives dragged though the mill. Issues like this do seems the last vestiges of an older time where religion still mingled in the affairs of the state.
I have some problems with the bureaucratic nature of the proposed test, it would seem ridiculous if a legitimate case resulted in a prosecution because of the ‘wrong paperwork’. This is more likely as the CPS/DPP will after a law change probably feel compelled to enforce the new law in a way they were unwilling to of the old. Nor am I entirely comfortable with the state’s agents deciding just how much pain a patient has to be in or an arbitrary date cut-off to be allowed to take advantage of such help. Only the patient can decide how much pain is too much or what quality of life they can or want to endure. Placing blanket limits seems to dehumanise individuals denying them real freedom on the ultimate decision that only they can or should take complicated by concerns for their friends or relatives of what might happen afterwards.
Still this amendment is better than nothing which is hardly a righting endorsement but it is something.
(As a side note I wonder if this is not an opportunity to sort a loophole of the present law whereby anyone who has life insurance normally invalidates their policy were they to take this option. So they have to suffer in pain or potentially lose out on the policy. Do we not need a provision that distinguishes assisted suicide in terminal cases (at least) from being caught by suicide clauses.)
I think the key counter-argument (leaving aside any moral qualms about the rightness of suicide) is much as “B” comments. The elderly and sick are a very vulnerable group, who may well feel under pressure to stop being a burden on their families.
Consultants in palliative care generally seem to think that better palliative care is the answer, not euthanasia, and I hope that their views get a good hearing.
I’m not sure what the problem is with even non-terminal persons, such as those suffering from chronic depression, requesting assisted suicide. As wanting to die is not a common wish, we as a society decide it’s unhealthy, and it is better to cure the individual of their deathwish rather than allow them to carry it out.
But what’s so great about people that their life is worth preserving against their will?
Our natural abhorrence of death is rooted deeply in instinct, not in logic, and although applying logic to an emotional/instinctual issue is itself illogical, it would at least be interesting to see a proposal drafted in such a manner, for comparison if nothing else.
I am personally in favour of allowing people to get help to end their own life where they are unable to themselves. However, I am torn about this amendment. Mainly because I am uncomfortable with the idea of British citizens being helped to kill themselves abroad where there may be limited control over how much the person was of sound mind and clearly expressing their own will.
If we’re going to allow people to go abroad to obtain this service then we are effectively making it legal, but just making it more expensive and less transparent than if we were to simply legalise it in this country.
I would rather have an amendment that legalises assisted dying in the UK. In the absence of that, I think it better to have nothing and continue with allowing the CPS to use their discretion. I know this is a painful uncertainty for the families of the critically ill, but it keeps hurdle high enough to strongly discourage misuse.
We really need a proper, grown-up debate rather than a half measure.
Jonathan
Support this all the way, please.
Nobody wants to commit suicide, everybody wants to be a happy and productive person who can partake in the life of the world.
But for some of us, there may come a time when our bodies, or our minds, fail us in such a way that we become a burden on ourselves and on others who we would not wish to deprive of their own lives for the sake of prolonging our own.
Personally, I find it unconscionable that a family member should be made, essentially, to care for me should I fall terminally ill at the expense of their own lives. Many of the people who advocate against assisted dying seem to forget that someone must do the caring, and that those people are often next-of-kin who give up their careers to do so.
We would never create a life that has the afflictions of some of the terminally ill that choose to end their lives, why should we feel it is acceptable to make someone live through it just because it starts when they are thirty?
The reason why some will opt for euthanasia is because they feel that the costs of keeping them alive, costs imposed on those they love and would wish long and happy lives for, is just too great, and should not be forced on them any longer.
That is why I welcome this amendment. Although not ideal, because those that choose to end their lives are doing so because they feel it is the best possible outcome for their family, not just themselves, the idea that their relatives would face prosecution must be a horrible prospect.
I would like to second Jonathan Hogg above,
“We really need a proper, grown-up debate rather than a half measure.”
The right to die really should be a matter for the person involved not the state. The states roll should really only be ensure safeguards against abuse are in place. Family/doctors/friends shouldn’t have to live in fear of prosecution if they help and everyone has been open about the process.
By having a halfway house of allowing people to travel abroad for the purpose we are really just abrogating the states responsibility to ensure the patients wishes are carried out within a suitable framework that protects citizens. It becomes some other states problem.
I haven’t talked to many terminal patients but I’m guessing if people considering euthanasia were polled the majority preference would be able to die in their own home with friends and family present. As far as this bill is concerned I don’t see it working towards enabling that.
The Bill currently before parliament is not designed to debate the whole assisted dying question. That debate needs to continue (and I am an advocate of letting people make their own decisions about the time of their going if they are mentally competent to make the decision and already terminally ill) but we need a very full exposition of the case for and against in a new bill to examine it. Lord Falconer’s amendment (tabled with the supporting names of Lord Low, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Baroness Jay)in the Coroners and Justice Bill is modest. It merely seeks to remove the risk of prosecution from those who accompany terminally ill relatives abroad to jurisdictions where assisted suicide is not illegal, but only if 2 doctors have certified that the person who wishes to die is mentally competent to make the decision to go and that he/she is terminally ill. The reality is that so far no-on has been prosecuted and it is unlikely that they will be in the forseeable future but this amendment would clarify an unhappy and fraught situation for the several hundred people planning to go to Swizterland to die.
baronessmurphy:What this bill is intended to do and what peers on both sides of the argument are trying to mould it into is quite another matter.
Lord Alderdice’s Amendment:
I understand that this is not about the whole question concerning AD, but this bill will allow people to end their lives with the help of others, just not in this country.
Baroness Murphy: I agree with the purpose of the amendment but feel the arguments that trigger immunity are insecure for a number of reasons. However, there may be a way forward.
To declare somebody ‘terminally ill’ or ‘incurable’ is not a death sentence but a prospect of death. There are all manner of interventions, scientific or divine that might intervene between the declaration and death to produce a remission or cure.
The declaration is always accompanied by hope but when things have progressed to a point where the body is so badly damaged by disease then an ‘end of life’ declaration can ‘safely’ be made to deal with something that is utterly hopeless. On this basis it would appear that the status quo should be maintained because the amendment is unreasonable of itself and those who would practice it.
Established custom and practice in use by medical teams at patient end of life act holistically, respecting personal dignity and wherever possible implement pain management regimes that assists a peaceful and dignified passing.
The clue here is the word dignity.
In 1948 the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its preamble states:
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
The amendment concerns itself with the attributes of a civilisation at its very highest level. It concerns itself by association with the loss of personal dignity and quality of life.
If the state gives immunity then it acknowledges the right to personal dignity as a Human Right. In doing so it becomes party to the act of suicide. If we acknowledge the right to personal dignity in terminal illness then we should also allow somebody to pass on in dignity outside of a natural death.
On this basis the amendment does not address the real issue and might better be aimed at first securing a Human Right in UK law to protect the personal dignity of an individual under certain circumstances. It would be my earnest hope that Parliament addresses this as a priority.
Ref: Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Preamble; Article 1
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Baroness Murphy: And just to lighten up things a little?
Eleven people were hanging on a rope under a helicopter ten men and one woman.
The rope was not strong enough to carry them all so they decided that one had to leave, because otherwise they were all going to fall.
They weren’t able to choose that person, until the woman gave a very touching speech. She said that she would voluntarily let go of the rope, because, as a woman, she was used to giving up everything for her husband and kids or for men in general, and was used to always making sacrifices with little in return.
As soon as she finished her speech, all the men started clapping…
I strongly support Lord Falconer’s amendment, yet recognise that it is an improvement rather than a fully satisfactory answer to the plight of individuals whose settled rational verdict on the miserable quality of their life is that it would be better to end it. But the needs of individuals barred from travelling to Switzerland by poverty or mobility-related disabilities must be considered in the context of a full and timely discussion of general reform of the law on assisted dying.Such a discussion ought to result in reform that removes the need for ‘death tourism.’ ,and give individuals choice not only as to when they die , but where. For other people, and in the short term. travel to Switzerland without the risk of grieving loved ones being prosecuted is obviously greatly preferable to making that journey with that risk.
The existence of first-rate palliative care , which I strongly favour and wish to see further developed, cannot legitimately be presented as argumnent against the introduction of a well-regulated right to die. This is because there are some conditions for which there is no reliable pain or symptom relief,
nor any certainty that the disease itself will directly cause an
imminent natural death. My late wife suffered from such a condition:secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Her predicament was lawfully ‘solved’ by her taking the momentous decison to starve herself to death.
The comments about individuals being pressurised by selfish relatives into opting for premature death I find depressing for two reasons. First it presents a very bleak -and I think unrealistic- picture of family life as systematically unloving and dysfunctional. Second, it is so frequently illegitimately used as an argument against reforming the law on assisted dying. This is illegitimate both in suggesting both that reform would mean that murderous schemes by relatives would cease to be the heinous crimes they now are, and that Parliament is incapable of drafting and enforcing laws that tightly define the rights of the individual patient and protect the latter’s considered choices from influence by criminal plotters or anyone else.
Granting individuals the ability to choose their death when TERMINALLY ILL is a great act of kindness. Patients who suffer a great deal of pain and are inevitably going to die should be allowed the CHOICE of choosing to die when they wish. This assisted death is clearly of more help than harm, as it prevents the patient from suffering any more from their illness than is necessary.
I do not understand how a patient who is terminally ill would feel pressurised into choosing to die. If a person is in a great deal of pain then why should they have to wait for death to come knocking? There is no pressure for people to take their own lives. When has there ever been any pressure for an ill person to take their own life? I’m certain Doctors do not ask their patients to take their own lives so that they can move on and help the next person, and I’m positive that relatives would never wish for this. So where is the pressure?
The bill states that only people suffering from “confirmed, incurable and disabling illnesses” will be given the choice to end their own life. Why is this such a terrible thing?
Many thanks for the comments. I have read them with considerable interest. Quantitatively, the balance so far is in favour of the amendment. Qualitatively, I recognise the force of the arguments. Those made in favour of the amendment appear to be more persuasive, though I remain open to argument. I take the point Joanathan Hogg and others make about the nature of the debate, though Lord Alderdice’s amendment does now take the issue wider than Lord Falconer’s.
Do please keep your comments coming.
I think ABD and Oliver go out of their way to misunderstand the points I make. I am not concerned with criminal family members breathlessly waiting for an inheritance or some other benefit that would come with death.
Instead I am pointing out the very real change in expectations which occurs when euthanasia is normalized. One only needs to look at abortion to see similar effects. There was a time when an unmarried woman who found herself with an unwanted pregnancy might have considered adoption or the profound change to her life that would come with having a child. But, now, in the form of abortion, an ‘easier’ option exists. And no can deny that a woman in such a position feels pressure to abort for no other reason than it is now considered the ‘normal’ option for someone in such a position.
If we recognize that such a phenomena exists in the case of abortion how could anyone deny that it would happen in the case of euthanasia? Moreover while a young working woman enjoys substantial autonomy and independence in her daily life, a terminally ill patient does not. There is a substantial asymmetry that exists between terminally ill patient and caregiver. How then can anyone fail to understand that such a pressure will be felt and internalized by a patient and in such a way that it might very well be said to interfere with one’s ability to make a decision?
Lord Norton – thank you for pointing me in the direction of this blog. I have read the posts with a lot of interest and have some points I wish to make:
The subject of assisted suicide is, by its very nature, an emotional one. Is the reason that those people, who have gone abroad with relatives to help them die, have not been prosecuted not down to an emotional response to the situation of these relatives? It seems to me that the arguments in favour of assisted suicide are primarily emotional ones, so to discount arguments against the amendments because they are emotional in nature would appear to employ double standards.
Croft mentioned how extaordinary it is that one could be guilty of the crime of assisting suicide when suicide is not a crime in itself. Does Croft not see that criminalising suicide would be rather a waste of time as the crown can hardly prosecute somebody who’s dead?
As regards polls and public opinion – firstly (as hilariously demonstrated on Yes Minister many years ago) the way pollsters word their questions can have a huge impact on the results of the poll. Polls basically are untrustworthy. Secondly, the public are only really hearing one side of the argument from the media and were they to hear the other side of the argument to the same degree we might see a change in public opinion (and I believe its naive to think that the public in general are not heavily influenced by the media).
I think it important to point out that the role of legislation is not just to “try and stop people doing things and punish them if they do”. Legislation, for better or worse, defines what we as a society believe is acceptable. When people, as in the case of the family of Daniel James, do something which is defined by our legislation as unacceptable, we (or at least those responsible for upholding our legislation) have a choice whether or not to prosecute. In this case, and in many other cases of law-breaking for many other laws, a compassionate decision was made not to prosecute. This is not an argument for changing the law. Once we change the law we are saying, as a society, that assisted suicide is acceptable. The next obvious step will be its legalisation here. How long then will it be before the most vulnerable in our society: the disabled, the terminally ill, the long-term ill, the elderly, are viewed by society as “a burden”, as a not “happy and productive person who can partake in the life of the world”. How many people in our society will be influenced into looking at their vulnerable relatives, who are in need of love, care, help and support, as burdens who are clearly “undergoing tremendous suffering” and would surely be better off dead? How many of the ill will feel the weight of public opinion regarding their situation and feel obliged to “do the right thing”?
Regarding Daniel James, I am not going to sit in judgement on either him or his family. However, I do worry about the “message” that this is sending out to others who find themselves in a similar situation. Daniel is quoted as not wanting to live “a second class existence”. It’s a shame that people around him could not convince him that his life was not “second class”, that as a human being he had just as much dignity after his accident as before. Once we start defining people’s “class of existence” or their “dignity” on what they can do for themselves or their state of health we are on a very dangerous path.
When I hear people “taking a dim view of religious groups foisting their world-view on others” that’s like a red rag to a bull! Yes, I am religious, I’m Christian and absolutely convinced of the truth of Christianity, not through blind faith but through a combination of reason and faith. Up until relatively recently, our laws have been based primarily on Christian values and those Christian values have defined the “civilised” in our civlised society. As, in our laws, we have drifted away from Christian values, so has our society drifted further into moral decline. For those reading this who don’t agree – take off the blinkers and look around!
I am very concerned when I hear comments like “But what’s so great about people that their life is worth preserving against their will?” Life is precious and every life is worth living. If somebody says that want to die (and I myself, having suffered depression, have been in the position where death actually seems preferable to what I was going through), it’s a cry for help and we, as a society, should be there to offer love, help and support, not a one-way ticket to Switzerland.
Oliver Coles & Jonathan Hogg: There is I agree an obvious inconsistency with facilitating the ability of people to go abroad to die while banning the same domestically. However the law rarely moves in leaps and bounds and tends to salami like tackle these matters in stages and we probably have to be realistic about this.
David: Many/some (conventional) suicide attempts are cries for help or where they are real ‘botched’ such that through discovery or their incompetence they survive. The state prior to the ’61 suicide act was quite vindictive at prosecuting and imprisoning people who survived. This was driven in part by the established church view and the prevailing state theology at the time. The law, as was, had unacceptable consequences which thankfully parliament after many attempts repealed. However the act uniquely, as I said, created an offence to assist someone to do something that was/is not an offence. This is an absurd position for the law to be in.
Yes Minister was an example of the use of loaded questions not of proper polling. There are many reputable firms out there that have asked questions on this subject. It is a long standing truism that a ‘rogue poll’ is one you disagree with. Vague attacks on polling does not an argument make.
The point about the Daniel James case is that he was an adult, was perfectly clear of his view of what quality of life he wanted and he made that decision. It’s not the proper role of the state to decide that this personal decision is public property. I might not agree with his decision but the idea that I have any right to inter fear in that decision on the basis of my personal morality is offensive. We are/were not living his life to make such a choice. (Fwiw Brian Moore wrote an moving piece at the time)
Britain is no longer a society whose laws are dominated by Christian theology and far from such great tragedy as you suggest many minority groups are consequently free from oppressive laws. Private morality or immorality is not the place of the state. You/the state/friends/family are perfectly free to ‘offer love, help and support’ but a person in unbearable pain may wish that help to be in the form of either assisting them to die domestically or abroad. Or is the ‘love, help and support’ conditional on you approving of their wishes?
I want to come in again here about the Daniel James case. Daniel James was not terminally ill and there is ample research evidence that after a long period, usually about two years, patients who have sustained catastrophic disbalities not only come to terms with them but are likely to be as emotionally content as they were before the accident. The ability of the human spirit to adapt to new circumstances is remarkable. Daniel would not have qualified for an assisted death under the Joffe Bill and neither would the vast majority of disabled people. But I respect Croft’s point of view about his case. Myself I would have tried everything in my psychiatrist’s bag (accepting it’s a rather small bag) to persuade him to wait before taking the step he did. This for me is the dilemma about the train to Switzerland. I shall support the Falconer amendment because while we have no proper safeguards in legislation to assist terminally ill people here many feel they have little choice but to take the Swiss route and their tortured relatives need proper protection.
Lord Norton, I don’t accept the arguments for legislation are emotional at all although ultimately have their origins in love and respect. Indeed they are largely cognitive, based on logic and legislative respect for the autonomy of the individual. No-one has to participate in this unless they choose to. There is absolutely no evidence of a ‘slippery slope’, of vulnerable people being persuaded to die in any of the existing jurisdictions where legislation exists.
Baroness Murphy: It was the arguments against legislation that I described as being emotional!
I accept that some of the things I said in my previous post were “off the cuff” and perhaps not desperately accurate. Thanks, Croft, for putting me right on the suicide act. I’m no lawyer or historian which is probably obvious! If the state were indeed as vindictive towards survivors of suicide attempts as you say, then I agree with you that this was unacceptable. Your dislike of Christianity is clear – I would like to explore this with you, however I realise this is not the purpose of this blog.
I do not accept that the position of the law with regards to assisted suicide is absurd. The “offence” is one of killing another person, which is totally consistent with the legal view towards murder. The fact that the person you’re killing has asked you to do it doesn’t change the fact that you’re killing another person.
With regards to polls, I would like to cite the Walton Committee (Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, chaired by Lord Walton, 17 Feb 1994) which was presented with claims that in the UK 79% of the population would like to see voluntary euthanasia legalised. But they took this result with a “pinch of salt” because the question in fact asked “Should the law allow adults to receive medical help to a peaceful death?”. The queston did not refer to medical killing. Similarly, the 1997 British Social Attitudes Survey quotes a figure of 86% in favour of euthanasia – this is based on the proportion of people who agreed that ‘euthanasia’ should be available for a person who is “incurable, on life support machine, never expected to regain consciousness”. Turning off a life-support machine is not euthanasia. I would be interested to learn the exact wording of the questions used in the surveys mentioned above.
You say that you find offensive the notion that one should interfere with another’s decision on the basis of one’s morality. Then, to be consistent, I would be confident in assuming that you also find offensive the fact that Catholic adoption agencies have had to close, despite their unrivalled reputation in finding homes for the most difficult-to-place children, because the state has imposed its “morality”, regarding the rights of same-sex couples to adopt, on those who believe this to be wrong?
You say that “It’s not the proper role of the state to decide that this personal decision is public property”. What you appear to be saying is that the state should have no right to interfere with anyone’s personal decisions to act however they wish to, be it fiddling expenses, beating up old ladies, abusing children, killing ill and disabled people etc etc. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, what you are in fact advocating is anarchy. A legal system will always determine what is “acceptable” and “unacceptable” within its jurisdiction. Law, by its very nature, imposes a certain “morality” on those who are subject to it – the morality of those who happen to be in power. It’s no good saying you find this offensive as the freedoms you currently enjoy depend on it. Frankly I would far rather live under a legal system, the laws of which were guided by a set of values based on God’s love for mankind, confident in the knowledge that He knows what’s best for us, than the alternative.
If you’re interested in the “other side of the argument”, please see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6513758.ece and http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/euthanasia.pdf
David: I have no specific ‘dislike’ of Christianity any more than I have any general dislike of any other religion. I take a very straight forward view on the separation of church and state. That any individual wishes to belong to any particular religion is perfectly fine and presents no problems whatsoever unless or until the predominance of that faith leads or allows them to influence the laws of the state and/or to translate religious rules or values that properly relate only to the faiths adherents and enforce them upon all others faiths or indeed those of no faith. In most countries there have been times where this has occurred and Britain was no exception and various groups did suffer as a result. This is hardly a controversial or new opinion.
On the use of polling all companies keep their data and publish the full details and exact wording on their websites which are easy to find. Obviously I could quibble about individual politicians presenting any poll as meaning something other than the wording of the question. Many polls taken as a whole is rather different.
Your comments about catholic adoption agencies or ‘fiddling expenses, beating up old ladies’ misunderstands my point. An individual deciding they wish to die directly affects them and they are deciding something wholly personal so the state has no proper place. In your example the catholic agency was not deciding something about itself or personal but of a child(dren) in the care of the state. The child is the individual at the centre whose interests are in question. Likewise the ‘old lady’ or the person/company/government being defrauded have rights to be protected from the individual. The person committing the acts you suggest is not making a decision that is purely personal.
Re. separation of church (or any religious institution) and state, I absolutely agree, although I would have further reasons to add from the Christian viewpoint. Lets just leave it there.
Re. the polls – it would be easy to find if I knew what polling companies had carried out these polls and when!
I don’t believe I am misunderstanding your point. I don’t think that you are seeing the connection. You seem to be saying that a person taking the decision to die with the help of another is making a decision that affects no-one else. In doing so you are denying the truth of the interconnectedness of human society – “no-one is an island”. To hark back to the Daniel James situation, the very fact that we are discussing it proves my point that more people than just Daniel James himself have been affected by his “purely personal” decision. These may include, perhaps, many vulnerable people, who are maybe now looking at their own situations in a “second-class” light and considering a self-destructive path that otherwise they may not have embarked on. This is not a cause for rejoicing.
I would really urge you to read the links I posted above. They demonstrate what will happen if we carry on down this path – because they have already happened in the Netherlands and history has an uncanny way of repeating itself (and note that the Dutch Law had plenty of “safeguards” which turned out to be nothing of the sort)
Thanks for the further comments, or perhaps I should say exchanges between Croft and David, which I have found extremely interesting. I must say that increasingly I find the arguments against permitting assisted dying to be less persuasive than I expected. The thin edge of the wedge argument is not compelling, nor do I see why vulnerable people are going to be somehow bullied into bringing their life to an end when they are already terminally ill. The argument that, for the general good, you must suffer in excruciating and undignified pain until you die is again something that I do not necessarily find convincing. I am still open to persuasion, but I would expect to hear more compelling reasons.
David: You mention the Netherlands but not Oregon. Any reason for that?
The Netherlands is a case that I have read about. I don’t know anything about Oregon but now you’ve mentioned it I will investigate.
I’m disappointed that you have not found my arguments “compelling”. Perhaps you will find the views of Professor Steve Field, the Chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, more persuasive? Please see his article on The Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/jun/22/assisted-suicide-uk-nhs