One of my concerns yesterday was that the arguments in the House of Commons were about pragmatics. There was no serious attempt to debate the principle of assisted dying. I get the impression that many MPs, even those who disagree with assisted dying in principle have accepted that it is going to come in at some point. Maybe those liberal/pluralistic presuppositions that cut across all parties these days (and note that sound leading members of Reform are advocating for assisted dying too) are kicking in, meaning that some will assume that even if they are against it personally, that it is a personal matter and so should be allowed for those who want it.
However, this bill shows the fatal flaw in pluralism. You cannot simply live by your views in a quiet corner without it having a knock on effect for others. We cannot have a society where it is simultaneously okay for the State to be involved in the taking of its citizens’ lives and it is not.
So, why is it that the big argument wasn’t engaged. Well, it is worth noting that the presuppositions underpinning assisted dying are:
- That the right to personal bodily autonomy trumps all rights.
- That we can grade human life so that we don’t treat all human life the same.
The point is that the debate was already lost on those two points many years ago and they are now principles enshrined in law. This happened when the 1967 Abortion Act was introduced.
There are some implications for this.
- When it is claimed that slippery slope arguments are invalid, they are not. We don’t need to look abroad for this. Earnings of a slippery slope in 1967 have proven true, first because of how abortion was extended and now because we see the direct link between 1967 and 2024.
- I’ve shared recently about my differences and concerns re the approach/tactics of some anti abortion activists. However, they are right to see it as a significant issue. In fact I would suggest that its importance is not because it is uniquely different to other ethical issues but because they relate so closely together.
- On the converse, this means that pro-Life activists who have campaigned hard against abortion need to campaign just as hard against assisted dying because this bill will entrench further the presuppositions that enable abortion.
This means we need to be pro life not just anti abortion or against euthanasia. It means seeking to argue for a culture of life against s culture of death.
Faithroots 