Stephen Kneale

The strongest case against assisted dying: listening to its proponents

As many readers will know, assisted dying is currently being debated and discussed in parliament. It is currently being proposed through a private members bill – brought by Kim Leadbeater – and is a regular feature in most media outlets. One of its co-signatories – the Liberal Democrat MP, Christine Jardine – went onto Newsnight to discuss the bill. I would encourage you to listen to the whole interview below (it’s only 8 minutes):

I am particularly grateful that the bill will be a matter of a free vote in parliament. Keir Starmer has been very clear that he will exert no pressure on Labour MPs to vote any particular way. Wes Streeting – the Health Secretary – has already come out against the bill. This is heartening not only because a senior cabinet member will not vote in favour, but specifically because implementation of the bill requires the Health Secretary on board. Likewise, the Justice Secretary – Shabana Mahmood – has also come out against the bill. This is similarly heartening given that the cabinet member charged with defending civil liberties and upholding confidence in the justice system is of the view this bill would not do so. Along with them, Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, has also said he is minded to vote against the bill. There are growing numbers of voices against its introduction.

But the strongest arguments against the bill are the very words of its supporters. The car-crash interview with Christine Jardine shows that their much vaunted world-beating safeguards are simply non-existent. The bill was punctured by the most basic of questions. These were not trick questions that one could argue were unexpected or cleverly inserted into the interview. These were the first questions, basic questions, that have been at the heart of the opposition arguments to the bill. Indeed, Victoria Derbyshire had to ask the same question four times without any credible answers coming. If even the most basic details – answers to the core arguments being put by the opposition – have not been considered and do not yet have credible answers, what hope do we have concerning the so-called safeguards particularly when they matter in the areas that have not yet been raised specifically by the opposition? If there are no answers in the obvious cases, what chance are there of answers in the less obvious, trickier cases?

We don’t even have to listen exclusively to the supporters within parliament. We can also look to the countries that brought such measures in. Places like the Netherlands and Canada, where increasingly there are voices of regret. Doctors amongst those leading such calls insisting that they never got into medicine in order to make decisions about when it is appropriate to help people die. Many are calling for the legislation to be taken out of their hands altogether so they are not the ones tasked with making such decisions.

It also bears saying, in every country where these things were brought in with the promise of only being used in certain cases with great safeguards, there has been the inevitable slide and increase. Recently, in Holland, there was a case brought before the courts of a depressed person who wished to end their own life. These rules on assisted dying were applied to permit the individual to seek a doctor’s help – not to help address their underlying mental health problems – but to help them acts upon their wishes despite their thinking being clouded by mental health issues. Such cases are both instructive and terrifying for those of us who suffer with poor mental health. It would also lead to conflicting policies whereby governments flaunt their extra spending on underfunded mental health services to prevent suicide whilst simultaneously paving the way to not only making it easier but for doctors to actively encourage it in the name of treatment.

I won’t rehearse all the problems with legislation on assisted dying here nor will I lay out all the problems with this particular bill. All those things can be accessed elsewhere. But I would just encourage you to watch, and maybe re-watch, that Newsnight interview. Remember, it is not just with any old supporter of the bill. This is an interview with a co-signatory to the bill. This is one of the key proponents for assisted dying. I cannot believe anyone can listen to that interview and think that we are anywhere near a policy that would be safe, kind or effective for anybody. The best argument against this legislation is simply listening to the very people proposing it.

But if you want some arguments from one who opposes it, let me finish with part of what what I said here several months ago:

I am convinced that many argue for things such as abortion and assisted dying, ultimately, because they are cheaper than encouraging society to take its responsibilities to one another seriously and properly care for those who are in most need of help. It is also to the benefit of feckless men who neither want to take up familial responsibilities nor have the cost of doing so. Pumping money into single parent support and excellent children’s services is far more expensive than forcing the cost onto individuals and then telling them they can abort their children if the time and money is prohibitive.

I think the same is true for assisted dying. Why pay for expensive mental health treatments that may go on for a life time when there is a simple and particularly cheap option even being mooted by the seriously ill person themselves? Why bother with expensive palliative care? Why faff around with the cost of producing newer and better drugs when we have some old ones that will serve us in an entirely different, but ultimately much cheaper, way. It is horrible on every level and, frankly, a failure of society and morality.

But if you want to see how liberalism is wrecking everything, this is it writ large. Don’t think I mean “liberal” like America uses it. I mean hyper-individualist liberalism. Neoliberals, driven by nothing but economic output, salivate over this stuff. Matthew Parris said quite bluntly, it is time we realised economically useless lives should end and the cost of keeping them alive is not worth it. Gross, but honest. But the social liberals who believe in realising your true self and causing the body to match the mind – whilst arguing that it would be an absolute tragedy not to let trans people mutilate themselves in line with their minds otherwise they might kill themselves – are now effectively arguing the depressed should express what is in their mind and actively kill themselves out of what amounts to self-expression. Apparently suicide is both a tragedy and beautiful. It is similarly gross, but a liberal doublespeak gross that is nonsense leading to terrible ends.

The Socialist and the Reformed Evangelical in me hates all this. I hate it because community matters. We won’t help because it costs me too much is as offensive to Socialist principles as it is to Evangelical ones. We have responsibilities to one another and ought to setup society in order to meet people’s needs. To reduce people to economic units is offensive and to only meet needs based on cost-effectiveness is foul. It is immoral. It is a failure to care for the most vulnerable in society. Rather than actually help, we are simply suggesting people are better off dead. Society is better of with them dead. What we are witnessing is the last 50 years of economic and government policy, that has worked its way down through society, in the form of hyper-individualism driven by liberalism. It’s not a left-right issue, but a liberal-individualist vs communitarian-societal one.

But I mentioned weeks ago the worry for people like me. The fear of being told my depressive illness is best dealt with by killing myself. Rather than the doctor stopping me and helping my mind keep me from doing that, this move in law will encourage the doctor to do what I have tried several times to do before but with greater effectiveness. I am glad this law didn’t exist when I wanted to kill myself because, had it, I almost certainly would have succeeded. That it didn’t meant that I didn’t, the doctor helped and, as much as I wanted to die then, I am grateful that I didn’t today.

Despite all the current rhetoric from those who support assisted dying and the terms on which they want to bring it in, history tells us that is not where it will stay. We are already seeing laws brought in elsewhere expanding well beyond the terms on which they were brought in. I am deeply worried for people who suffer seriously with mental health issues, who asked on the wrong day or during the wrong year, might insist they really do want to die and that is their sound and reasonable choice. I fear many of those who would have said that once, wouldn’t say it today, but if the law introduces assisted dying they wouldn’t have any opportunity for their mind to heal and therefore change. I think we should worry about what we see elsewhere, we should worry about what is driving this push toward this change in law and we should stand against it.