Decriminalising Compassion? The Government’s Assisted Dying Bill
Decriminalising Compassion? The Government’s Assisted Dying Bill by Mo Hasan
Everyone has a right to life, but what about the right to die – especially a dignified one? Diane Pretty, crippled by motor neurone disease, fought until the bitter end to legally end her own life. The House of Lords ruled that her right to life did not include a right to die. Refusing to give up, she took her case to the European Court of Human Rights. They also disagreed with Diane, but they acknowledged that her wish to choose how to end her life could theoretically fall under her “right to private life” (Article 8). Although suicide isn’t illegal, Diane was physically unable to act on her own– she needed help. This is what the Assisted Dying Bill seeks to address.
This year, Lord Falconer tabled a Bill on Assisted Dying. Over the years, various MPs have resuscitated this delicate debate: Should a person be able to request an earlier death to end their suffering? More importantly, should a person’s loved ones be able to make that decision on their behalf?
Even when presented with the most harrowing hypotheticals, this question splits the room. Almost everyone agrees that living in agonising pain without bodily autonomy can make you feel like life is not worth living. Yet, opposition to legalising euthanasia in the UK splinters into a variety of counterarguments.
The Slippery Slope Argument
Euthanasia, critics argue, is a slippery slope with potentially dangerous consequences. For every politician that argues we can develop robust legislation to create “safeguards” against this power being abused, there are several others who remind us how easily this power can be abused by those with misaligned incentives. We cannot prove whether someone in a vegetative state truly wanted to die. Is there a situation in which greedy or burnt-out relatives coerce an elderly relative to sign the dotted line? Could cash-strapped hospitals use their newfound “license to kill” to balance the books? These hypothetical scenarios are deeply cynical, even insensitive, but they are incredibly difficult to prevent.
Palliative care is an alternative that works
Some argue that palliative care is the ethical alternative, focusing on pain management and providing a dignified experience—emotionally, socially, and spiritually—for terminally ill patients. Instead of legalising euthanasia, they suggest improving funding for palliative care, offering patients comfort and families closure.
However, others argue that while medication dulls the physical pain – it cannot erase the psychological suffering that patients experience of losing their bodily autonomy. Some families turn to the adage of “quality over quantity” and explain how prolonged suffering has spoiled the positive memories of their loved ones as being “healthy” or “full of life”.
Doctors’ Dilemma
Doctors, bound by the Hippocratic oath to "do no harm," could soon face a dilemma: prioritising a patient's wishes over their own ethical and professional standards.
The Way Forward
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, one thing is clear: the ongoing debate pushes us to find ways to better manage suffering for the most vulnerable in our society. Perhaps, ending our lives on our own terms isn’t solely about autonomy, but an attempt to preserve our perception of ourselves. We want to avoid the pity of our loved ones and resist having our final days defined by physical and mental decline.
Hopefully, this Bill sparks not just a conversation on assisted dying, but on improving end-of-life care within the NHS. While “hard cases make bad law”, they also force us to reflect on the kind of society we want to be.
Sources and Recommended reading:
· House of Lords Judgement (2001): https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011129/pretty-1.htm
· ECHR Ruling: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-5380%22]}
· Lord Alton’s opening remarks against “assisted dying” (Oxford Union debate): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opzy2g2HLU0
