What’s wrong with a bill seeking to introduce assisted suicide?

While the bill title does not reference assisted suicide, and campaigners prefer to talk about assisted dying, the detail of the legislation betrays that. This is about introducing assisted suicide – it amends the Suicide Act (1961) to allow circumstances where it is permitted to assist someone to commit suicide.

Ahead of the publication of the bill, the MP, Ms Leadbeater, talked of it having the most ​“rigorous safeguards of anywhere in the world”, others have talked about it being the most restrictive of any laws around assisted suicide in the world – forgetting all those countries with far more restrictive laws which do not permit it.

What is also apparent is that the safeguards are more like a bureaucratic process to navigate than effective protection for the most vulnerable. They are designed to create a process which supports an industry of those in favour of helping people navigate the system towards the conclusion where they are helped to take their own life. The need for two doctors to approve is undermined by the possibility of shopping for an alternative doctor if one decides to say no. And the judge giving final approval is not required to examine why a doctor might have refused to support the application.

Sponsored

In recent days we’ve also seen campaigners talk about ​“shortening death” for people who are ​“already dying”, in some sense we are all already dying, but what this bill proposes is to suggest that those expected to live for less than six months are moved into a new category and what is proposed is to hasten death and not to shorten it.

The proposed bill tries to do a lot but it fails to address the ever-present problems with any attempt to introduce assisted suicide. It does not adequately address concerns about coercion or manipulation. It permits the involvement of others, for both the process of application, and in the administration of the fatal drugs.

The bill makes a fundamental shift in the priority of the health service; it requires that the availability of assisted suicide is ensured, while doing nothing to increase the availability, or to ensure the provision of palliative care.

It provides for medical practitioners to choose not to participate, but courts have interpreted the meaning of ​‘participate’ quite narrowly in other similar ethical cases. This would likely only apply to the role of doctors actually taking on the responsibility of being the first or second doctor in the process and not those in other associated role. There is also no provision for judges to exempt themselves from approving an application.

While there is no duty on a doctor to participate as the first or second doctor in the process, there is a duty for a doctor who is unwilling to engage with an application to refer to one who they believe will be willing.

The proposed bill is not full of stringent restrictions but a bureaucratic process designed to help people take their own lives. It fundamentally undermines efforts to discourage suicide and help people live lives full of value and dignity. Furthermore, the more bureaucratic a process the more

tempting it will be if enacted to find ways round it, or to amend in the future to simplify – the argument will be that if we want people to have dignity we shouldn’t require such a convoluted process.

This bill should be rejected. It does not provide dignity in life or death. We should instead redouble our efforts in care and compassion to help those who are in greatest suffering, to know that they are loved and valued, to support families to care for their loved ones and to firmly stand for life, even as death draws near.