I recently attended memorial services for two friends. Both died after long illnesses, and the services were naturally sad. But the subsequent receptions were uplifting. Two lives were celebrated by those who shared them. Achievements were praised and loved ones recalled. Everyone agreed on one tragedy: that the subjects were absent from an event that would have made their departure – and their lives – complete.
I know that a more generous Britain will one day allow us to choose when we die and whether we want to have such celebrations ourselves. They will seem as normal as birth and marriage. We may be hindered by illness or old age, but we can say goodbye to family and friends in good order and at our own pace. We could enjoy with those we love the meaning and pleasure we have derived from our lives on earth, with the science of medicine to make it bearable.
This week’s debate on the assisted dying bill is a return to the dark ages. It is carried out as if it were a dangerous and radical step into unknown territory. Britain used to consider itself a progressive country. Now in one area after another – drugs, prison sentences, mental health – that is not the case. In terms of assisted dying, the country now lags behind the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium. What’s wrong with us?
All the ‘issues’ raised by opponents of the bill are answered by regimes abroad. The best case is probably the Australian state of Victoria, which has similar safeguards to those proposed in England and Wales. There has been no outbreak of suicides, no signs of coercion, no lack of palliatives, no need for Britain’s proposed absurdity of requiring judicial approval. Other countries – many of which have a similar approach to democratic freedoms to Britain’s – are finding that they can guard against the risk of coercion while respecting individual freedom of choice. Yet we discuss this as if Britain were on Mars.
Much of the discussion is about religion. This cannot be fair. Imposing religious doctrines on a largely secular country is archaic. A joint letter from 29 faith leaders against the legislation was published last weekend, while Justice Minister Shabana Mahmood has said her faith was the “starting point” for her opposition to the issue (although she stressed in a letter to her constituents that she “would never impose my religious beliefs on anyone else”).
For most British people, death is not an act of God but of nature, and one that we can regulate to some extent. We can study other countries for that. The reality is that we can now alleviate the pain, humiliation and misery of most diseases throughout our lives. Assisted dying allows us to extend that avoidance to the suffering that so often accompanies death.
I accept that death is in a different category from illness, but we can to some extent choose the timing of it and thus make it less cruel. Some may prefer not to, and that is their choice. I don’t understand why they should deny others the same choice.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? To submit an email response of up to 300 words to be considered for publication in our letters section, click here.