• March 28, 2024
 Parliament Discuss Assisted Suicide Bill

Parliament Discuss Assisted Suicide Bill

Last week the Commons debated the polarising issue of assisted suicide before Lord Falconer officially reintroduced the first reading of the Assisted Dying Bill on January 28th, whilst the Lords heard a first reading of the Right to Die at Home Bill.

Christine Jardine, MP for Edinburgh West, introduced the debate which brought up a number of pertinent issues which will need to be considered as the Assisted Dying Bill makes its way through parliament this year.

Andrew Selous raised an important concern regarding safeguards protecting old and sick people from feeling pressured into ending their own lives.

Arguments referenced eligibility criteria in Oregon which found that a third of eligible patients requesting help to die, do so as an insurance policy for when their illness deteriorates.

Last year, Belgian Paralympian, Marieke Vervoort, made the decision to end her life through Euthanasia.

Despite living with a degenerative muscle disease which caused seizures, paralysis in her legs and constant pain, Vervoort went on to win four Olympic medals in the last two games, including a gold and silver in London.

However, even before her Olympic journey unfolded, 40-year-old Vervoort had made the decision to end her life on her own terms by signing papers in 2008 allowing doctors to assist in her death.

Marieke Vervoort’s home city of Dierst announced her death explaining that the athlete had ‘responded to her choice on Tuesday evening,’ 11 years after first signing her wishes for doctors to assist in her death.

Whilst the decision may have been difficult, Vervoort was able to remain in her hometown, dying on her own terms.

Later discussions delved into the issue of palliative care and research suggesting that countries with legal assisted suicide commonly see a noticeable fall in palliative care investment.

There were calls for palliative care to be better funded to ensure that hospices are able to meet their need and that it is available to everyone.

Capacity to consent and mental health support were also raised during the debate. Respondents claim the concrete safeguards and legal parameters that would need to be put in place could make the Bill extremely difficult to pass.

Others saw the Bill as a way of promoting suicide for those with mental health problems. Instead, there was a greater emphasis placed on the need for further support for mental health organisations.

Christine Jardine reminded the house that the Bill intends to help competent adults who are terminally ill as opposed to people suffering from mental health difficulties.

However, the blurred lines were discussed. Those both terminally ill, thus eligible for assisted suicide, and suffering from mental health difficulties could make a decision to end their own life for the wrong reasons and the law may struggle to prevent these deaths if passed.

Having passed the assisted suicide law ten years ago, Oregon’s annual Government report for 2018 stated that half of eligible patients cite ‘fear of being a burden ‘as the primary reason for ending their own life.

Canadian safeguards were also highlighted the subjectivity of ‘terminal.’ Respondents cited a Canadian man killed by lethal injection who was depressed as opposed to terminally ill. Another incident involved nursing staff offering assisted suicide to a man with a neurological disease, rather than a terminal illness, who had specifically made repeated statements that he did not want to die.

Although the law will undoubtedly throw up a multitude of ethical and legal considerations, this Bill is persistent which highlights the desperate need for many people in the UK. A need intensified because of the perceived two-tier system currently operating whereby the rich have the option of spending 10,000 euros to be helped by Dignitas but the poor are stranded and restricted by current UK laws.

Unfortunately, for over 350 UK residents, the absence of an assisted dying law meant that they were forced to travel vast distances to end their life at Dignitas in Switzerland.

In order to be physically able to make the trip, many were forced to make the decision before they would necessarily need to if they were able to die at home.

Currently, a Briton travels thousands of miles every eight days, despite constant pain, to end their suffering without the fear of a loved one facing prosecution because UK law prevents dying people from asking for medical help to die.

It is also a crime to assist a suicide In England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those convicted could face up to 14 years in prison; an excessive sentence considering 44% of UK adults would assist a loved one with dying in spite of all risks.

The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service then review guidelines to assess whether the act was deemed as ‘malicious’ or ‘compassionate’ before deciding whether to prosecute.

Various Bills have made their way through Parliament only to fail at the final hurdle despite 84% of the public and 54% of GPs supporting the choice of assisted dying for terminally ill adults.

In 2014, Lord Falconer proposed the Assisted Dying Bill allowing terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have an assisted death after being approved by two doctors. Although two opposition amendments aiming to derail the Bill were defeated in 2015, the General Election took precedence and the Bill lapsed before it could be fully scrutinised and ratified by Parliament.

When Rob Marris reintroduced a reformed version of the Assisted Dying Bill towards the end of 2015, it was defeated during the second reading following a four-hour debate.

Now that both the Assisted Dying Bill and Right to Die at Home Bill are making their way through parliament once again, it seems as though the UK could finally recognise, and to some extent, provide additional legal pathways to help those suffering from terminal illnesses or conditions end their life on their own terms.

Martin Parrin