The UK Parliament has just voted for a second reading of the bill to introduced assisted dying. I want to step back and reflect on the debate that was held in the House of Commons. I tuned in to the early stages of the debate and heard several of the speeches.
What struck me was the level of deeply disturbing, deeply inappropriate backslapping and ego stroking. MPs were keen to praise the proposer, congratulating her for choosignt he subject, for drafting an excellent bill and for her conduct in bring it in. They congratulated one another for wonderful speeches and declared that whichever way they voted, they were maing hiustroy and doing something important and good. First, giving the content matter, even if you reluctantly see assisted dying as a necessity, it is hardly a congratulatory manner. Secoindly, this was perhaps one of the most woeful debated I’ve witnessed.
Kim Leadbeater who introduced the bill had to come back later on and correct the record for giving the impression that the judiciary were on side. A big theme of most of the sppeches in favour were that even if MPs were un happy with the bill, they should nod it through today because this was the only chance to discuss the issue and they would have opportunity to amend and improve it later on. They didn’t really have to make a decision now, that would be at the third reading. Danny Kruger opposing the bill rightly pointed out that this was not the case, there simply would not be the time to amend the bill to the extent many considered to be needed. The point of a second reading is not to significantly rewrite bad legislation to make it good. The point is to refine good legislation.
Here’s the thing though. Te bill is essentially a carbon copy of previous attempts. This means that wilst it was only recently published, many of us accuraltey second guessed what would be in it. We have been highlighting the specific issues relating to coercion and safeguarding since September. If the proposers were concerned to improve their bill, they could have made an effort to listen to concerns and refine the bill before its first reading. They did not.
With regards to Danny Kruger’s contribution, disappointingly he focused mainly on procedure and the safeguarding question. Now as important as those things are, it misses the point that this isn’t a proposal o do good things poorly, it’s a proposal to do bad things poorly. He took a long time to get round to the core issues with the legislation. Towards the end he did pick up on the point that this legislation Is not about giving individual choice to a few people who want ti without affecting the lives of those who don’t. It will change the lives of everyone. I have frequently pointed out on this blog how those changes will occur. First, we will move from a culture of life to a culture of death. Secondly it will change the way that the vulnerable and frail are perceived. Thirdly, something that hasn’t been picked up on, at a day to day level it will change our relationship to our GPs and medical practitioners
Dianne Abbot’s initial comments were powerful as mother of the House. She reminded MPs that in 1969, Parliament had gone against public opinion to abolish the death penalty because it believed that the State should not be involved in the killing of its citizens. It was telling that MPS were skittish about using words like “kill” and suicide. Yet, if they want to bring forward legislation, of this magnitude, they should own the language that accurately describes it.
Kit Malthouse’s contribution was particularly offensive. A number of people have pointed to the way in which other countries, notably Canada have expanded the scope of assisted dying. He lambasted others for daring to imply that Canadian’s don’t love their children. I hought that a particularly crass, low moment. He also claimed that people will take their own lives anyweay, so the state should facilitate it. However, this misses the point that most people who take their own life through sucie do not do so because they are in the late stages of terminal illness. Should we provide the syringe and drugs to anyone struggling with suicidal thoughts.
Tim Farron was passionate and compassionate. It was good to hear MPs clearly advocating the case for a compassionate “no” to the legislation and rooting it in reason and in personal experience. Much has been made of the so called compassion angle and I want to move towards the main point. It was telling that when Andrew Mitchell spoke, he referred to the constituents coming into his surgery and moving him to tears with their accounts of seeing a loved one suffer towards the end. It left me wondering how much the concern is about aleivating the suffering of the dying and how much it is to do with shielding us from having to witness the cruel sting of death.
This is important because the proponents do not have a monopoly on personal stories. Those of us who oppose the bill have been there to see friends and family die too. I’ve seen some difficult, drawn out cases of suffering. I’ve also seen peaceful deaths with good palliative care. This does not mean that they were without suffering. One thing that has not been touched upon is that often those who are involved in the care of the dying will comment that a person will go when it is time. Two years ago, around about now we were beginning to come to terms with the reality that my mum was dying. We were told to be prepared for the uncertainty f that. We were advised that it could be drawn out over days. I was bracing for a drawn-out period of suffering but actually it was less than 48 hours later. Mum had time with her family, chance to say goodbye and then in the night, Jesus took her. There is a strong view that when death is prolonged it is because the person has unfinished business. It’s important to have this in the picture when people are terrified that their own death will be long, drawn out and painful.
When it came to the needs and rights of the dying themselves, the emphasis was on the right to a “good death.” Yet beyond the un-evidenced presupposition that a good death is one where you have full autonomy, there has been a lack of debate on what a “good death” (the basis of the word euthanasia is.
All of this brings me to my main reflection. There was a lot of talk about compassion but I’m not convinced that this was really what we saw on display today. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that those MPs were not loving, caring people, in one sense you can say that they are compassionate. However, distress at difficult stories of suffering is not itself compassion. True compassion is about being willing to step in , even to suffer with in order to help a person in need. This bill motivated by pity does nothing to help those who are suffering, in fact it increases the risk of harm and mor suffering to the most vulnerable. It is because it is moved by pity that it fails to offer true compassion.
Faithroots 