We now have sight of the bill introduced to Parliament in order to legalise assisted dying (euthanasia). I’m against assisted dying, on principle and I believe that it is impossible to consistently hold to Biblical teaching as a Christian and support it. However, even if you do not disagree with the principle of assisted dying, then you need to look at the detail on offer and decide whether this is a good bill. You may still support it in principle but disagree with this Bill. Indeed, you may come to the conclusion that the provisions you have with the Bill are going to be true of any attempt to introduce euthanasia. It is possible to in principle not have an issue with something but still conclude that it will always be practically impossible. For example, it is possible to agree with the principle of capital punishment but conclude that thre is no safe and just way to implement it. In this article, I intend to walk through the Bill and highlight the issues that exist with it.
First, section 4 says:
“No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person. But nothing in subsection (1) prevents a registered medical practitioner exercising their professional judgement to decide if, and when, it is appropriate to discuss the matter with a person.”[1]
Subsection 2 does introduce the possibility that a medical professional may choose to raise the subject, to introduce the possibility of assisted dying. Given hat one of the supposed intents of the Bill is to ensure safeguards against potential duress, pressure, this is confusing. Surely, it should never be the place of another person to introduce the conversation if you wish to ensure that the decision is made freely and without compulsion. For a medical professional to introduce the option is to introduce significant pressure
In subsection 3, the possibility is introduced that a medical practitioner may choose not to respond to a discussion with the patient. However, they are required to refer the patient to another practitioner if requested.[2] Note that the wording includes the beginning of a value judgement on such practitioners with the language of being “unwilling.” It is often argued that offering these opt out clauses provides a conscience clause for medics. However, I would contend tha they are highly problematic. First, there is a huge difference between being unwilling to advise, agree to or assist I suicide and being unwilling or unable to have a conversation with a patient. In effect, this removes a crucial voice from a conversation, the doctor who knows the patient and has a perspective as a medic on what is in the paitent’s best interests. It in effect pretends that those who don’t hold to Christian values are somehow neutral in the conversation. Shouldn’t a practitioner who passionately believes in Euthanssia, in fact agrees with Matthew Parris’ view that there is a duty to die be excluded from discussions too?
I wish that assisted suicide were not an option on the table at all. However, my inclination would be that if the bill were enacted that Christian doctors would want to hold those preliminary discussions with their patients. If the duty on them at the next stage is to record and confirm the patient’s wishes then really the opt out they would desire is from being required to prescribe lethal drugs.
The other problem with conscience clauses is that whilst they may protect doctors already in the profession and in secure posts, it is likely to put those holding to a conscience clause at risk when redundancies occur, at the early stages of their career, when it comes to recruitment and career development.
Provision at Section 7 (2) (f-g) has rightly provoked debate. It says that the assessment concerns whether the person:
has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and made the first declaration voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.
Yet, these are things that a re difficult to determine, certainly ni a short one off consultation and indeed, as has been pointed out, these are not things that doctors are necessarily trained in. It does not allow either for the extent to which coercion/pressure may not come from people overtly pressurising you into an action but passively, culturally. So, that pressure comes from
- A society that by the laws it enacts offers a view of what it values and who it values
- The things we overhear others say such as “I don’t know how he goes on…” “Yes it is becoming a burden…” “I don’t know how much more we can cope…”
- The very willingness of your GP, a medical professional to open up conversation.
- Alertness to financial bills coming in.
Section 12, then requires the matter to go before the high Court. As has been pointed out by a former judge here, this simply is drawing the courts into a process and judges into decision making where they don’t really belong. It’s asking them to affirm decisions rather than rsolve disputes and it is asking them to decide on facts rather than law.
Once again it also draws a profession into a situation where lawyers, like doctors have their own ethical consciences trampled on, thus politicising them.
Regardless of whether you agree with Assisted suicide in general, I’m sure you will be able to see that this Bill amounts to bad law. Parliament should be embarrassed and ashmed to be even considering it.
[1] Section 4 (1,2).
[2] Section 4 (3).
Faithroots 