Thus, while advocates of legal abortion believed that it would reduce instances of single motherhood, its paradoxical effect was the opposite. By relieving social pressure on men to step up after impregnating a woman, legalising abortion accelerated the prevalence of single motherhood — a phenomenon now widely recognised as a central to the feminisation of poverty.
Most women in the UK support the availability of at least some legal abortion. My aim here isn’t to re-litigate this acutely sensitive debate, but to draw out a more general implication: that when a previously unavoidable life experience becomes avoidable, wider attitudes to that experience will change. And for some, it’ll stop being a matter for sympathy.
This is the shift which justified the Right-wing depiction of single mothers pervasive during my youth in the Major years, and still widely associated with individualist Thatcherite Toryism: lazy, parasitic “welfare scroungers”. Implicitly, those who took this position assumed that because such women could have terminated a pregnancy, the duties following on having not done so should be wholly on their shoulders. In other words: if suffering is avoidable, the choice to suffer comes to be seen as wholly private.
And it’s on these grounds that we should be wary of assisted dying, regardless of our views on the immortal soul. For in practice, over the increasingly liberal 20th century, it’s been consistently the case that what looks like ‘choice’ for the well-off gets underwritten for the less wealthy by the welfare state. In the case of accidental pregnancy, for example, as single mothers grew in number others rightly sought to relieve the resulting poverty and suffering.
Again, I mention this not to re-litigate these debates and certainly not to stigmatise those who rely on these resources. Rather, I want to sound a note of pessimism about how sustainable this dynamic will be in the 21st century. For the expansion of the welfare state as underwriter of last resort for personal choice is predicated on economic growth. And this in turn relies heavily on population growth. And while that well seemed bottomless in the Peak Boomer years of the 20th century, the 21st so far has seen economic shocks, concentration of wealth in a super-elite, and a globally collapsing birth rate. In other words: the enabling conditions for a 20th-century welfare state are crumbling in front of our eyes.
We’re already seeing intensifying competition for a dwindling pot of taxpayer support, between different interest groups. Thanks to the demographics of the UK’s voting public, which skews toward the old, victory in this struggle has thus far gone to the elderly. But this may yet change, as demographics shift and belts are tightened. And history teaches us that even during the Christian era, when life was explicitly defended as sacred, scarcity has at times driven people put a thumb on the scales.
Folk songs tell of women who give birth out of wedlock and murder the newborns. And at the other end of life, even Christian European cultures sometimes practised “mercy killings” of the elderly.
In Sardinia, the femina accabadòra, the “lady of the good death” would be summoned to the bedside of someone very old or terminally ill, and after reciting a final ritual blessing would kill the sufferer with a blow to the temple, using a special hammer. The Galluras Ethnographic Museum in Luras includes an example of this implement, resting with a gothic flourish on the pillow of an empty bed. Similarly, early 20th-century ethnographic reports describe Lapot, a practice in the Carpathian mountains in which an elderly person unable to care for themselves would be ritually killed by a relative.
The common factor in such killings was a shortage of resources. That is, societies making grim choices about what to do with those so old, young or ill they’re wholly dependent on care – and to whom a community is unable or unwilling to devote the necessary resources.
And notwithstanding cruel conservative stereotypes, it’s overwhelmingly scarcity that drives the “choice” to end a pregnancy. In the US, the poorest 12% of women account for almost 50% of abortions. And a glance through women’s stories swiftly illustrates just how far the individual “choice” to end a pregnancy is often far from free, but rather a reluctant decision driven overwhelmingly by poverty.
In a world where dwindling welfare resources are ever more grudgingly funded by a shrinking working-age population, it’s easy to imagine the arguments from scarcity that will follow, ever more explicitly, upon the transformation of terminal illness into a “choice”. Indeed, they’re already foreshadowed by an assessment of assisted suicide by the Canadian government, which noted that legalisation “could reduce annual health care spending across Canada by between $34.7 million and $138.8 million”.
Those individualists now pushing to extend “choice” to the end of life are still wedded to a hyper-individualist twentieth-century mindset that relies on an ever-expanding welfare state to underwrite its freedoms. But they’re not paying attention: the age of abundance that shaped that dream of endless choice is already over.
And yet they push on. If they succeed, many people now healthy will face terminal illness in a “care” landscape created by individualists, for a society that’s enshrined “choice” over any public duty of compassion — and that can no longer afford a publicly-funded care infrastructure to pick up the pieces. I don’t want to live in a world where ‘tough-minded’ right-liberals write op-eds implying that those with terminal illnesses who refuse the Socratic way out are selfish parasites.
A cynic might argue that given all this, adjusting the statute book to allow for a 21st-century “lapot” is merely sensible. But if this is so, we should drop the rhetoric about freedom and compassion. We should be under no illusions about what this Bill is for, or about the callously neo-Roman attitude to human life that will follow in its wake.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnother fine article from Mary Harrington (I see there’s also an article by Douglas Murray–an abundance of riches in today’s Unherd).
The author’s conclusion appears to be that the current UK assisted dying bill is, in reality, motivated by dwindling resources and everyone should acknowledge that fact, and that such a bill, if passed, would usher in a “callously neo-Roman attitude to human life.” I wonder if the reality is quite so clear cut?
I’m sure the bill is motivated, in large part, by the reality of dwindling resources. And what’s wrong with that? No society can prioritize the elderly over the young forever. We’ve already done that in response to the covid pandemic and I think we’re only beginning to see the damage done to young people’s lives and future.
I think we should also acknowledge that even in the late twentieth century, which was arguably the wealthiest period of human history, we often paid lip service to taking care of the elderly at the ends of their lives. Too often they were warehoused in care facilities where their basic needs were met but otherwise they were left to vegetate and die. That approach might have assuaged the bleeding hearts who wanted to be seen doing something for people at the end of life but it was a cosmetic kind of care. The reality is many of those old people were arguably tortured through loneliness and emotional neglect. As a society, I doubt we’ve ever fully funded the type of care old people need in their final months or years.
And would this latest UK bill really usher in a “callously neo-Roman attitude to human life”? The image at the top of this article shows a woman bathing a frail, elderly person. I would argue this image is typical of the emotional manipulation often seen in debates around assisted death. The argument is, by implication, reduced to a choice between the kind woman in the picture gently bathing an elderly person or some Nurse Ratched figure cracking them on the skull like the femina accabadòra mentioned in the article. The reality is much more likely to be a process where the elderly person is fully consulted and many safeguards are in place. Doubtless no process is perfect but, as the saying goes, we shouldn’t let perfection stand in the way of the good.
Ultimately, our individual view of life and death will weigh most heavily in our view of assisted dying legislation. For some, human life is sacred. Period. But for others, such as me, it’s quality of life that matters and a life lacking dignity is no life at all. So when I look at the image at the top of this article I’m terrified. I never want to be the elderly person in that image. I would much rather walk into the woods with my Glock 9 while I still have strength in my legs.
“The author’s conclusion appears to be that the current UK assisted dying bill is, in reality, motivated by dwindling resources and everyone should acknowledge that fact,”
Indeed. Let me translate that into cockney, my mother tongue. “Some bugga wants your dosh and is going to whack you over the head to get it”
So then what principle holds me back from killing you before you kill me?
I don’t think there is anything to stop you walking into the woods with your Glock 9 – but isn’t the point here that the State should not provide you with the gun or the bullets or the person to pull the trigger? I fear that as soon as we accept that the State can do that then we are on a very slippery slope. I am pleased we live in a country which abolished capital punishment . I would be concerned if we now started inventing ways for the State to sanction the killing of human beings.
The state can’t do that, it’s merely giving the autonomy to the individual to make a choice about their life without criminalisation being involved.
Why can’t the state do that?
I agree with your position, but would argue that despite shooting being one of the most effective ways to kill yourself, you will leave a bit of a mess for someone to clear up… and often your friends or family might be the ones to discover you.
Far better to have a quiet assisted death.
A quiet, refined, unemotional murder? Depressingly suburban.
Always the thin end of the wedge.
I’m baffled that their are commentators on here who are fervently anti lockdown so, they don’t think the state / medical establishment has a right to restrict their movements and would willing give the same state the authority to decide to end their life??
Isn’t the point that the individual can choose it? Currently anyone helping them is criminalised and I’m pretty sure suicide negates any insurance policies.
respectfully i disagree Cheryl
Can you choose for laws not to apply to you?
Do governments regularly ( predictably) abuse laws and take them further than was their publicly stated intent? anti terrorism legislation, coronavirus act 2020
For those wishing to commit suicide that’s already an option available , “assisted suicide” is hygienic way of saying state / medical authority killing, it is extremely naïve to believe such a power can be trusted to any institution.
I’d bet almost all those here who are pro “assisted suicide” are also against the death penalty, because they don’t believe the state has the right to decide who lives and who dies.
I think most issues with the death penalty is the uncertainty that the police got the right person as they have a history of getting it wrong rather than state abuse of power. Just as the best argument, in my view, against legalising assisted suicide would be safe guarding issues as opposed to the religious argument. However I am in support of assisted suicide.
My mother died of cancer a few years back. It wasn’t a nice way to go however she was in a hospice surrounded by caring staff and morphined up to the eyeballs. She passed peacefully surrounded by family within a few days. The silver lining (thanks to the morphine) was that it was faster and more dignified than dementia.
Fortunately the current legislation would require 2 doctors and a judge to “legalise an act of assisted suicide”.
The Harold Shipman association isn’t valid in this context … as his activities were “murder” which no legislation will prevent.
Suicide does not necessarily negate insurance (life assurance I assume) policies. But it seems a peculiar argument. Many people make choices, some of those choices society has deemed objectionable (hence the existence of the criminal justice system), to argue that choice is somehow sacrosanct, but life is not seems a very dismal self absorbed vision of society.
How on earth do you arrive at the idea that if you are pro assisted dying that you give the right to the state to decide on this for you? Have you ever heard of a living will? Have you ever heard of assisted dying facilities that people of sound mind pay to go to to die? The state must hoof off.
Except that that isn’t what’s at issue in this Bill. The ‘choice’ element requires the would-be suicide to be mentally competent, as determined by a judge who may or may not see the person, and may proceed on written evidence, which can’t preclude coercion or undue influence. The two doctors must agree that the person is within six months of death. But prognosis really isn’t that accurate a ‘science’; in fact, it’s closer to gazing into a crystal ball.
The whole edifice is built on everything being as it seems. In many cases – too many cases – that will not be so.
Hello again Lesley, still making friends and influencing people i see. so this article concerns British law and institutions, the NHS is a state run organisation, not a private enterprise maybe like wherever you are. the 2 doctors who have to decide on the capacity to consent are employees of the state, that’s how i got there. If you honestly believe that there isn’t an incentive for the state to pressure expensive palliative care patients into an early grave then i don’t know what to tell you pal, maybe where you stay the state has infinite time and resource? not here though, here the whole country has to lockdown to stop the health service from collapsing and clap for it while we do so.
A much better comment than the article itself. Thank you for that.
A question of dignity & death. I am all for choice and in my experience, (my mother, mother in law, father in law, sister in law, parents of friends) all elderly at deaths door or w serious illness have a single common theme. Do not keep me alive.
As for my sister in law who was suffering from rapidly degenerating & painful motor neurone disease, she could not go to Switzerland during Covid & had stopped consuming food so that she could die. It took her 2 days to pass away. She was wholly for assisted dying & her plea was aired by bbc.
For me – There is nothing wrong with abortion. A child is not gods gift. It’s merely a biological outcome of mating. Sometimes it is just not right for the mother to be a mother. It is her choice.
For me – There is nothing wrong with assisted dying bill. For those terribly afflicted and suffering and those elderly who have no strength left, it is their choice.
Where do I apply for permission to have (the use of) such a weapon? An old Star or its follow-on the Browning “Highpower”) would be for me (Cheaper, and at such short range, just as efficient.) Will the British Olympic pistoliers be allowed to practice in the UK again?
I fundamentally disagree with the proposed notion that “the current UK assisted dying bill is, in reality, motivated by dwindling resources”
This is not borne out by the facts/materials in any of the legislative proposals during my lifetime.
Moving on – it’s worth noting that many people completely fail to understand the difference between “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia” and (unusually) the author seems to be one of them.
Organisations like “Dignity in Dying” do a fantastic job of highlighting the plights of real (named) people being subjected to unnecessary suffering – some of whom have to resort to lonely suicide attempts.
I would thoroughly recommend a visit to their website to anyone who wants to get a broader understanding of this subject.
Christianity should surely take part of the blame, as it encourages us to think that we should treat humans differently to animals – so our natural compassion to put a mortally wounded animal “out of its misery” cannot be countenanced for people – even if a perfectly lucid person seeks that compassion for themselves.
Christianity’s view on animals is generally as misunderstood as its view on everything else. The Christian position on animal rights is that animals have no rights — we refrain from causing them needless suffering because to do otherwise degrades humans. It has nothing to do with the animals themselves. That is very significantly different to the attitude of modern animal rights groups. It is hugely unfortunate — if the calculated results of deliberate leftist policy can be called “unfortunate” — that Christian doctrine has become so misunderstood by the public, and amazingly, even by many clerics.
Fewer people each year have proper Christian formation. Most westerners assume they understand Christianity because historically it was always around, but really, they have no idea. Christianity is not trendy vicars or Jesuit modernists, it’s the thing that stopped the Vikings at Edington and took Spain back from Islam, and it didn’t do these things by killing its own.
You are right. Most people living in post-Christian cultures cannot give an accurate definition of a Christian but think that they can.
There is nothing dignified about drowning to death by midazolam. Certainly isn’t painless as your website would imply.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/last-rights-assisted-suicide-is-neither-painless-nor-dignified
I read that article, and it was roundly criticised (by Spectator readers) as providing no links to meaningful evidence.
There are plenty other drugs and non medical ones that will kill quickly and efficiently without the drowning. Having worked with street drug users for a good number of years, I have held the hands of many, either on the street waiting for an ambulance or in the back of the ambulance, who have taken their drug of choice and pushed themselves over the edge. The majority had a peaceful death…
I do remember my father saying wistfully “if I were a dog they would have put me down by now.”. I wouldn’t have liked his committing suicide because I loved him very much, but if it were his wish I would have supported him because I loved him.
Indeed, so would I have done. I have had two grandparents with terminal cancer and a personal friend struggling to survive Motor Neurone Disease. Each was cared for at home by family, supervised by a caring GP. When it became clear that they felt their lives intolerable, morphine provided the passport they needed. Sadly present requirements placed upon the GP make this very difficult. That is why legislation is needed and the bill currently before the Lords should be respected.
Absolutely, but then you do not need legalised suicide for that. I make no boasts ahead of time, but I would hope I would do the right thing if called upon – whether it was legal or not.
I expect you (and I) would do the right thing.
However, is it fair that either of us could currently be jailed for “doing the right thing” ?
Again ‘You should not vow to walk through the night before you have known the darkness’ (Tolkien). But 1) it is my impression that the risk of going to prison is pretty small, as long as you are talking about someone who is dying and in pain. It would be a different thing for a young healthy person with depression – which frankly sounds right to me. 2) There is something incongrous in saying that you think the situation is so terible that it justifies committing murder, but not so serious that you are willing to go to court and take a small risk of going to prison. Do you *want* this to be an easy and consequence-free decision?
I used to think as you do – but when faced with the reality of being asked to assist someone terminally ill with a painful and distressing brain tumour, I had no confidence that the medication she wanted me to hand her (an oral suspension of morphine) would be enough to achieve the effect she wanted or whether it would just add to her suffering – she had already had a bout of terribly painful pancreatitis, which is a listed side effect of the medicine. I was also more scared than I’d expected about the consequences for me, especially as I knew her husband and son would not agree with her choice. So I refused, and she made it quite clear how badly I had let her down.
Some days later the family and I were told, by the doctor who visited her daily, to stay with her because she would not last the night. When she slept, we thought it was her end, and a peaceful one. But she woke the next morning – in total remission!
This isn’t a ‘miracle cure’ story. The lady did die of her illness, some 18 months later. But for most of that time, she was well, pain-free, and happy, unafraid and reconciled herself and her family to what was to come.
Hard cases make bad law, I know. But the experience taught me I don’t want people playing God.
I shall bear that story in mind, if I ever need to.
Thanks.
Always the thin end of the wedge
What is always the thin end of the wedge ?
Consider some Dutch and Belgian experiences. And how wide the abortion law in Britain widened despite initial assurances.
I’d be happy to discuss any amendments made to Dutch and Belgian legislation if you would like to tell me (and others) which ones you are referring to.
What I mean is that the law gets passed with all kinds of assurances built in to protect the vulnerable and slowly they all away. It does not matter what the legislation says it is having the appetite and willing ness to enforce it. Look at the laws on abortion or drugs.
Also, take the first step on the slippery slope and it ill not be the last. Once you decide assisted dying is OK so long as the individual gives genuine consent, how long before we start to fudge the issue of consent.
How many MPs back in the 1960s would have voted to legalise homosexuality if they had been told that it would end with gay marriage.
It looks like the insensitive wording that I (and others) quoted earlier has now been removed – and if so – thanks for making the change.
No amount of clever wordsmithery will budge me from my thought through position that assisted dying is the pinnacle of a caring, sophisticated society.
100% agree.
I’m normally a big fan of Mary’s writing, and I with her on declining ahderance to Christianity correlating with less caring & selfless behaviour (though most studies suggest the association is very small.)
But while there are indeed Christian traditions against suicides, that’s merely human teachings, they are not reflected in God’s word. The Holy Bible contains at least 7 clear suicidies, included assisted dying like Judges 9:54, and these are not condemned within the good book. Many of us Christians whole heartedly agree that helping someone end a life of uendureable pain is compassionate.
You give an example from the Old Testament. Any from the New?
I think only Judas, Mat 27:5
“Sophisticated”? Interesting choice of words.
Personally, I don’t think it’s caring to administer a drug that causes people to often drown in pain.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/last-rights-assisted-suicide-is-neither-painless-nor-dignified
Like you I was horrified at what was said there, but if you read the letter in reply to the article you would see a robust debunking of the this position.
Any chance you have a link to it? My inept internet search failed to uncover it.
I’m sorry, Jason, but I read it in the Spectator hard copy so I don’t have a link.
I’m afraid it’s probably behind their paywall ..
This the latest desperate attempt, mainly from Christian opponents of assisted dying, to prevent reform and it is nonsense on stilts. I have given hundreds of barbiturate anaesthetics and also examined many patients who recovered from suicidal barbiturate overdoses, Not one of them recalled anything at all from the time they became unconscious to the time when they woke up. That’s why we anaesthetise people about to undergo painful procedures. This an assisted lying campaign – assisted by donations from far right US Evangelicals.
Have you dealt with families eager to put pressure on people to die to get at their money? Let’s not be naive. Relatives of the sick won’t always have the purest of motives.
This is just posturing. Many people trying to take their own lives (a more difficult, far messier and often more unsuccessful proposition than one is lead to think), people being abused in care homes, people suffering terribly and often for very long periods of time from diseases that are excruciatingly painful and/or rob one completely of ones dignity.
I wouldn’t want any such moralising virtue signallers around when it for example comes time for the doctor to give me my ‘self administering’ morphine. Just stay the hell away from me please.
Don’t many people already die in hospital of morphine overdose? From what I understand there are worse ways to go.
The problem is not so much that you can get access in hospital and hospices to excellent end of life drugs as needed, it’s more that dying at home or because a hospice place is unavailable leaves a person vulnerable to lack of end of life drugs. When my mother in law died from Parkinson’s disease, the McMillan nursing care arrived when she was already dead. 3 weeks too late. She was lovingly tended by her dedicated caters, but no help from the medical profession. Fortunately she was peaceful in her passing. But the family still bear the emotional scars from this awful time.
Spoken like a true fundamentalist!
“We largely have Christianity to thank for our faltering modern belief that human life is sacred.”
We live in the afterglow of Christianity. We have accepted christianity for so long that some of us have forgotten that its precepts are precisely that, precepts, rules of conduct, supernatural commandments. I never ceased to be amazed at the number of people who think that the moral codes of which they are so fond, are innate to their humanity, rather than artificial constructs born of weakness. Well they are not, as we are about to discover. I am alternatively an atheist or an agnostic, depending on my mood, but at least I know where my morals came from.
In the interest of discussion – isn’t your view somewhat contradictory?
By your own admission you are atheist/agnostic. Which means you do not believe that the rules or commandments are from a deity – but rather created by man.
So I would ask where you believe the commandments came from? How do most major religions have similar core values/commandments (to their adherents at least)? And how did we decide which ones were of value?
For what it’s worth I am also atheist/agnostic. I believe that humans have developed a broadly similar moral viewpoint that is intrinsic to most people, (albeit with variance; sociopaths, truly evil people and all the shades back from these).
I don’t think this is solely from religion for the reasons above, but also that most religions have a lot of commandments and prerogatives that we duly ignore in the modern era because they are plainly wrong (killing people of differing faiths or beliefs etc is universally wrong in most of the world to use one plain example). We have chosen to ignore these parts but pay heed to others – with good reason.
Now where I would agree is that religious texts contain a lot of value and meaning that it is careless to disregard. Also the key role that religions have played in building the societies we have.
Be interested to hear your thoughts
The commandments are easy to explain. They arose among small desert clans scraping an existence against the elements, predators, and competing groups. They grew to recognise a few simple rules which kept the clan together; don’t kill each other,don’t lust after others’ property, don’t disobey parents, don’t argue with dad, don’t eat pork – in a land where cooking fuel was scarce, thoroughly cooking a pig was uncertain, and the deleterious effects of undercooked or spoiled pork were far more serious than other meats -, and so on. Note that there’s no mention of ‘rights’. These rules were attributed to a deity, or ‘superdad’, so that each generation didn’t have to relearn them through experience. The people who administered these rules learned that expanding and embellishing them increased their power and influence, and in the case of Jewish peoples, establishing a strong ‘cultural identity’ gave them a sense of power to replace the real empire they had lost. See Simon Schama’s history of the Jews. Succeeding Abrahamic religions invented their own cultural shibboleths.
Hmm – I’m reminded of the statement from Cardinal John Onaiyekan who declared that his father “knew the ten commandments” long before he was introduced to Christianity. His point being these moral principles are built in.
And where does the principle of forgiveness come from?
Who knows? But certainly they are in Confucius – way before Christ
No they are not.
Ask a roman slave
I just asked one. He said he’d been advised by St Paul not to worry about it and be obedient.
Her main point is that once suicide becomes a normal and approved way out, there will be more pressure on people to take it. People who prefer to keep living will be seen as selfish (if they demand help) and anyway as the authors of their own misfortune. And heirs, the treasury, and simply people disturbed by having suffering around them, will push for the unpleasant and expensive suffering to go away. More people will die who could have lived fairly happily. These are simply facts.In return, of course, people who strongly desired suicide will be able to have doctors and relatives at their deathbed, and the few who were technically unable to kill themselves will have a choice they previously lacked. Choose what you like, but do not sugar-coat it.
I would add that any safeguards will be worthless. Dutch law now considers it legal for a doctor to kill a person who is demented, unwilling, and actually fighting against the needle – when said person has signed an appropriate euthanasia document years earlier. And, for comparison, British law only allows abortion where the physical or mental health of the mother is seriously threatened and two independent doctors sign a document to that effect. Reality is clearly different. One abortion organisation was found to have pre-signed doctors certificates lying around which were given to the customers to satisfy this bureaucratic obstacle. It took a campaigning organisation to raise a stink – and the legal system did nothing, because those ‘safeguards’ are in fact a dead letter. Safeguards around euthanasia will be no different.
I agree. Mary‘a fundamental point is that, currently, the position of this important element in the “system” is fixed. If it is changed all sorts of other moving parts in the system will recalibrate in unexpected and often unseen ways.
I’ve tended towards assisted dying, driven by the coverage of those individual cases where it is clearly the only humane option.
Just as distorted attention to one rogue policeman should not lead to conclusions about institutional racism, so a much broader view is required of this issue. As always Mary’s contribution has been interesting and helpful.
Is your position born out by data from the countries that do allow assisted dying that there is pressure put on people to seek suicide?
All depends on what you mean by pressure. Making suicide official, recommended, and approved is at the very least a nudge. But since you cannot ask the people who kill themselves (they will, after all, be dead), how are you going to clarify their motivations? There is the observation that in Holland ‘assisted suicide’ has gradually expanded from people terminally ill with a physical disease, to young healthy people with mental problems. But the data in Mary Hartington’s article (on both assisted dying and abortion) are enough for me. If the Canadian government believes that legalising suicide can save the health service 100 million a year, do you really believe that ambitious hospital administrators under pressure to meet budget targets will not get the point that promoting suicide is a good way of meeting those targets? Or at the very least that they can cut spending on those suffering patients who insist on continuing to consume scarce resources?
Is it born out by data that countries that do allow assisted dying do *not* see a long-term increase in suicides and a decrease in support (material and moral) towards those who suffer?
So are we seeing a huge (and suspicious) increase in ‘assisted deaths’ in these countries? Short answer.
Read Andrew Roman’s comment below on what happened in Canada. None of the skulduggery that you assume…. Just common sense, empathy, logic and true concern for fellow humans.
I did say ‘long-term’. With current social norms and the law as it stands not that much seems to have happened – yet – though I would not take the unsupported word of a person like Mr. Roman who is clearly pro-suicide.
Anyway, the laws will gradually be relaxed – it is happening in both Holland and Canada. The people pushing hard are all would-be suicides and their families, and the practical reasons are all for getting rid of those expensive and troublesome people, The only solid argument on the other side is ethical, and once that pass has been sold gradual change will handle the rest. As for social norms, they, too, will change as killing old people becomes ever more normal and it becomes a sacred right to opt for suicide. We will get there – as the example of abortion shows.
“Reality is clearly different. One abortion organisation was found to have pre-signed doctors certificates lying around which were given to the customers to satisfy this bureaucratic obstacle. It took a campaigning organisation to raise a stink – and the legal system did nothing, because those ‘safeguards’ are in fact a dead letter. Safeguards around euthanasia will be no different.”
Not only very true but deep down everyone knows this
This is true enough. Though the assisted dying laws always seem reasonable on paper, and safeguards seem more than sufficient, the reality is that the slippage only begins once the laws are put into place. This is true of all laws. Have a look at Holland and Belgium and it becomes clear how these well-intentioned and compassionate measures QUICKLY got twisted out of shape.
What no one has mentioned is there are some very malignant people pushing this legislation
I do not know anybody who has seen relatives and friends end their lives in a care home who wants that for themselves. I certainly don’t and I hope I have the courage to commit suicide before it happens.
But this entire debate fails to consider two essential points. Firstly, the NHS is keeping people alive on a cocktail of drugs. Although I don’t have any data to support it, my view is that 70 years ago or so, this did not happen and the elderly became ill and died quite quickly, and doctors did help them on their journey because I witnessed it.
Secondly, because of the drugs, the conditions suffered by the elderly can be too complex for people to be cared for at home by their families, and health and safety regulations also play a part. Combined with this the state has encouraged the breakdown of traditional family life and responsibilities so the young no longer want to care for their parents, assuming that they live near enough, which is unlikely as families move apart often as a result of greater university eduction.
Speaking as a 58 year old currently in good health and planning to die in my sleep in about 30 years time I would nevertheless be greatly reassured to know that assisted dying was available should I need to choose it.
This is an honest question: Why does the dying have to be assisted? If you think you might want to kill yourself, is it not enough reassurance that you can lay in the means ahead of time (in WWII it was a cyanide pill) and use it at need?
Personally I would be more reassured to know for sure that if I was old and ill and went into hospital, the doctor would definitely try to keep me alive rather than ponder at what point I ought to die.
The answer to that is a bit obvious; a stroke, a bad road accident, any debilitating and sudden illness that removes the ability to do it yourself!
That is a real problem and it does cause much suffering. But I’d say the window is relatively small. We are talking about debilitating illness that comes so sudden you have no chance to deal with the problem in time, that leaves you incapable of killing yourself but still fully capable of taking your own decisions, and people who have no one close to them willing to take the risk and responsibility of helping them. As opposed to the damage from letting everybody understand that it is up to them to get out of the way before their suffering becomes a burden on everybody else.
Yes, thank you Peter, my thought exactly.
It is not that easy to kill yourself and to do it emphatically. I believe there are many websites that point to the many failures with people who are left maimed or incapacitated.
Anyway, you could have a system whereby you simply write a living will indicating in what circumstances you want intervention – or don’t. What is it with people who don’t want others to have freedom of choice? There seem to be more and more illiberal people about these days.
Consider the Dutch case of the doctor who drugged the coffee of a woman suffering from Alzheimer’s; that the woman’s living will stipulated that she had to determine when it was the right time to be euthanized; that the woman fought against the lethal injection; and that her family had to hold her down so the doctor could inject her.
Reported by BBC, 2019.
That is a crime. Stop trying to derail the discussion.
More likely that the paramedics arrive when you are on your way and forcibly resuscitate you.
Make sure that you have your DNR in your hand and then they are not permitted to resuscitate.
This system of “living wills” exists in the U.K. and is now called “Advanced Decisions”.
It is cheap and simple to register, and anyone who is prepared to take an adult view about death should feel an obligation to do this – purely for the benefit of their families.
If I were unlucky enough to be to debilitated to end my own life, it is abundantly clear what I wish to be done.
Most importantly, this will save my family and friends endless pain should this occur later.
Cyanide would not be my choice of drug but it would be preferable to medics using all of means at their disposal to keep me alive. None of us can live for ever and it seems to me that it would much healthier if we accepted that.
Morphine has a shelf life
But in 30 years time it is unlikely to be your choice
Maybe, but I would like to have the choice.
That is not what I meant. It means they you are going whether you like it or not
I also sincerely hope assisted dying is freely available when my time comes. I believe the individual knows, deep inside, when it’s time. Almost as if we are being called back to wherever we go after death. It seems to me that it’s often the living who cannot accept death as natural and to be accepted. Read 30 Meditations on Death by David Jarrett. An experienced geriatrician. Absolutely eye opening. And he strongly advocates we all prepare properly for our own end of life.
It’s a good article and it’s arguments are well constructed but I don’t buy it’s conclusion. Death from natural causes can be a reasonably painless and dignified business but it can also be prolonged and painful. The supporters of assisted dying merely want a legal way of offering relief from the anxiety of unnecessary suffering. In countries where this has been permitted most people die natural deaths but they are able to reassure themselves that should their condition become unendurable they can end their own suffering. Our laws don’t come from God. They are man made and constructs of their times.
Indeed – just having the knowledge that there is a way out available later if the “worst comes to the worst “ also reduces worry and depression in many terminally ill patients.
Additionally, it provides them with confidence that they will not have to put a family member at legal risk who may later want to help them.
This is (yet another) straw man argument in this debate, founded on an illogical comparison. To compare abortion rights to rights to dying is not only tenuous it is almost deliberately deceitful. The right to die would and should only be for those of sound mind who know they are at the end of their life. Abortion is nothing like this – it is the choice of the mother, not the unborn.
Additionally, to try to say the drive is resource drive is, again, to miss the point in style. This is about removing extreme suffering at the last stages of life rather than forcing people, who understand what is happening and will happen, to suffer and allowing them to make an adult, informed choice about their own life. The safeguards are severe and need to be. It it nothing to do with resources and should and won’t become that.
Although personalising the argument is not always a good idea, I have terminal cancer (stage 4 prostate cancer) and I know the pain it will bring. This does mean an interest in what will happen and extensive research. The extraordinary pain caused is not fully managed or resolved by palliative care. The palliative care community ackowledge this, reluctantly. I have written on this and the real choice facing the terminally ill – (https://charleselvin.substack.com/p/half-life-24-dignitas) if you are interested. As the cancer surgeon Henry Marsh pointed out in April this year – ‘the law insists I suffer’.
Those who would deny this right advocate suffering in others when it could be removed with all the necessary safeguards to protect old and vulnerable people. They have a right to be protected. I have a right to make an informed choice.
Very brave of you to speak out. I hope you get to make your choice, your way in your own time.
Do the unborn’s rights come from the mother? Or their own humanity?
You say you have the right to make an informed choice. So I hope would recognise the rights of those would not want to help you because of their informed choices.
The proposed legislation provides this safeguard for those who do not want to “help”.
Thank you for speaking out and I believe it is important to be personal about this issue. That’s the only way for many to actually comprehend the reality. Otherwise it becomes a dry, theoretical discussion. Ultimately pointless.
You do indeed have the right to make an informed choice.
Surely human life is most sacred to the person in possession of it and who has to live it? Being kept alive to suffer a terminal disease because others deign your life ‘still worth living’ on your behalf is tantamount to a torture you would not visit upon a dying animal but somehow it’s ok to subject a sentient human being to it? The faux piety of the religious crowd (and it is nearly always the religious crowd) makes me want to puke.
Forgive the religious crowd, for they know not what they do ….
Many, many years ago I was having a discussion with a doctor, and I asked him why we treat our animals more kindly than we do humans.
The answer was as chilling as it was brief.
“Animals don’t generally leave a Will.”
Brutal, yes. But how realistically would two doctors and a judge determine that relatives are not putting on pressure because of a Will?
Let’s not be naive. Assisted dying would not always be like Little Nell’s.
We surely do not treat animals kindly! Most of us are indifferent about millions of pigs and chickens that suffer in cages all their lives so we could not eat meat, but eat CHEAP MEAT. On the other hand, we adore our pets and are ready to spend thousands on them and on vets who cure them, or ‘put them to sleep’ at the end. We are a cruel species and denying the right to die to an old, terminally ill, suffering human being is cruel, plain and simple, even if dressed in Christian casuistry. Such a First-word debate too! Why not die at 85, if one is sick, disabled and by extension expensive to keep, and leave room for others?
These people beggar belief Cheryl. They would prefer watching others suffer.
Here’s the end of a related letter which I recently wrote to the House of Lords:
“While I am very strongly opposed to assisted dying, I just as strongly believe in polite, respectful conversation. I would, however, suggest that the moment a change in the law is implemented, polite, respectful conversation will become increasingly difficult. That is because the states primary duty where assisted dying is concerned at that moment will transfer from a duty to protect the vulnerable (elderly, disabled, terminally ill) and will instead be transferred towards the medical practitioners carrying out the process and to the remaining family members. That is because there will always be the terrifying possibility of an extremist taking the law into their own hands (as with abortion). If my fears are correct then that could suggest that the earlier mentioned ‘slippery slope’ could in fact prove to be closer to a vertical drop.
My own life is very hard and I am genuinely frightened. Yet as I made clear to my local MP when writing on this matter, you do not have to agree with everything I say. All I ask is that you acknowledge that given the complexities involved, that a change in the law would be very ill advised”.
That is a fine concept if it were true. Yet in ordinary life people and societies while nominally Christian ignore that concept when it suits them. How many died in the World Wars – often killed by soldiers ‘blessed’ by priests/vicars on both sides? How many illegal abortions were carried out over the centuries. How many used contraception? How many turned to life saving medicine to avert death (the will of God)? How many die of famine when charity should be available?
So yes, if you hold life to be sacred, then don’t commit suicide (assisted or not), don’t have an abortion, don’t practice contraception, be a Conscientious Objector in times of war. Give up your wealth. But don’t seek to prevent other people having ‘options’ – Christianity has lost its social authority.
Some Christians (not all) may have lost their moral authority, absolutely true. But they stand judged by the teachings they failed. And the Teacher who taught them.
Thank you for such a well-constructed article, Mary. The unintended consequences of modern laws which attempt to “improve” society become apparent all the time. The financial incentive for euthanasia will only increase including for malicious inheritance reasons. Here in the UK there would no doubt be a reduction in palliative care research because a cheaper option would now be available. In the US there have been instances of medical insurers refusing to cover end of life care in states with euthanasia laws.
The vulnerability of the disabled has not been mentioned. The actress, Liz Carr of Silent Witness, made an assessment of euthanasia as it operates internationally in her opposition to such laws being introduced here. It’s on YouTube.
I would favour improved palliative care, and understanding and respect for Do Not Resuscitate wishes. I have had a relative with dementia dying of pneumonia revived for another 5 years of vegetative life. Another with a stroke which prevented conversation 5 years. Neither could communicate their wishes but both would likely be faced with imposed euthanasia in some future iteration of how euthanasia laws are interpreted. This kind of evolution is seen the The Netherlands where it can now be applied to children.
Excellent article as usual. As noted, this is an instance where a law’s primary importance is its role as a cultural catalyst in our move towards a death culture. I’ve helped care for several relatives before their deaths. My brother and sister and I cared for my Mum 24×7, 8 hours stints each, for the last 8 months of her life. I still treasure that; and I learned much from her in those surreal final days and weeks. But as anyone who has experience of such caring knows well, DNR and DNF notices are commonplace when someone is approaching the end. De facto, assisted dying already exists. It’s just that there is not a culture of encouraging it. Legislating for it will have a powerful cultural effect. Abortion always sells itself by reference to the hard cases of rape, likely major birth defects and risk to the health of the Mother; yet the majority of abortions (like the one my rich ex had in the late 80s) are not done for such reasons, but are done for reasons of convenience or poverty. Similarly, while the incurable pain narrative will loom large in the euthanasia debate, the unintended reality will be vulnerable elderly people (who aren’t in unbearable pain) being murdered by lazy and greedy younger relatives. Face facts, folks. Humans aren’t generally sufficiently noble to withstand the temptations and opportunities of state-sanctioned senicide, and you may be a little naive if you think otherwise.
Spot on.
I fail to see why this author has included an attempted correlation between abortion and the right to die. Totally different things.
If anyone does not wish a peaceful death on a fellow human then shame on them. There has to be much more discussion over the right to die.
I am a retired Canadian lawyer. I have read the UK Bill before the Lords and also the Canadian legislation. The UK Bill requires judicial approval of medical assistance in dying (MAiD). This judicial process is likely to be slow and costly. Canadian law has no judicial approval requirement. Two independent witnesses are required to verify consent, and the physician is required to determine whether the patient’s request is consistent with Canadian law.
When the Canadian Bill was being debated there was a lot of speculation about future abuses, with scary names like encouraged suicide, euthanasia and murder disguised as assisted death. There was also concern that MAiD law would create undue pressure on people with disabilities to consent to end their lives. These fears have not materialized.
The Canadian law has progressively become more permissive in response to empirical evidence. The timing of the patient’s death need no longer be foreseeable if illness causes intolerable suffering. An all party committee of Canada’s Parliament is now examining advance requests from people suffering from, e.g., Alzheimer’s, who fear they will lose the capacity to consent as their condition worsens.
It is a fact that dying sooner than later of, e.g., terminal cancer, at the patient’s choice, will save the national health service the cost of futile further treatments, but that effect is not the reason for the Canadian law. The reason is to allow the individual the choice of continued unbearable suffering with a hope for the future or ending that suffering. (“My death, my choice.”) MAiD is not compulsory for patients or physicians. In these cases the opposite of assisted dying (usually in a ceremony with family and friends present) is not healthy living but unassisted dying (often alone).
There is a subtle conflict in philosophy (and perhaps some perceived professional competition) between some some palliative care physicians and some physicians who participate in providing MAiD. Up to a point, these medical interventions are mutually exclusive. But again, a patient can choose which medical treatment they want, at what stage of the deterioration of their health.
I don’t know whether the UK Bill will become law, either as drafted or as amended, but there seems to be a growing international recognition that it is not the role of government to compel a person who has the mental capacity to consent to MAiD to continue living with what is to that person intolerable suffering. One important philosophical question, therefore, is setting the appropriate balance between state control and private personal agency in circumstances of intolerable suffering near, or in anticipation of your death.
Your comment confirms the point I was making below. The current UK bill is unlikely to be the final word on the issue and over time restrictions will be removed and eligibility for assisted dying will be widened to cover a whole range of chronic conditions. I find the idea of including Alzheimer’s cases particularly disturbing. I wonder what sort of doctor would involve themselves in such things.
The Canadian law precluding advance requests for cases like Alzheimer’s is being discussed, but has not been amended, and may not be. So we don’t know what the response of the medical profession will be to this law if it is changed. Those doctors advocating this change tend to be psychiatrists.
An excellent, thoughtful comment.
Thank you. This was an informed comment and I learned from it. I should however point out that I think Ms Harington is under no illusion about the nature of these new laws. It is more about the changes in societal behaviour patterns and expectations this will induce in time as it happened with abortion.
On those castigating single mothers as ‘lazy scroungers’:
Implicitly, those who took this position assumed that because such women could have terminated a pregnancy, the duties following on having not done so should be wholly on their shoulders.
Yes, it is an implication, but one that may not have occurred to anyone. I think their assumption is/was usually that the pregnancy wasn’t accidental and wouldn’t have happened without the assurance of social resources. Otherwise a brilliant essay. Mary Harrington is wonderful.
“after World War I. When church leaders on all sides cheered on that bloodbath as a “crusade”,”
I appreciate you likely feel you were being very tolerant in your required Christianity bashing, and by modern standards were, but I feel it is a very mixed opinion piece where you failed to make a coherent case.
“We largely have Christianity to thank for our faltering modern belief that human life is sacred. The ancients took a much more casual approach.”
Not really – the times were so very different then you make a false claim. But anyway, I always get overly involved in this topic, and will restrain myself, but one point:
UK 1968, Abortions legalized and pro euthanasia bills introduced. 1964, death penalty ended. The old Liberal/lefty refrain of save the monsters and kill the innocent, for Moral reasons….. Postmodernist Liberalism in a nut shell….
The state already decides who gets to live and who should die. Look at the extra hospitals opened during Covid. The warehouses where patients too ill to survive would go because there were not enough ventilators. Patients have their life support switched off after assessment by their doctors or by request from close family.
Decisions not to treat or not to resuscitate take place every day in every hospital in the land. Not necessarily the choice of the patient but definitely a choice by their medical team and their family.
So why not give people the choice? Stop hiding behind Christianity and stop hiding behind the hypocratic oath. At least be open and honest about today’s position so that citizens can make an informed choice on the proposed bill.
Some of the people commenting have never heard of triage.
Thank you for a thoughtful article. I consistently appreciate your way of expressing ideas. (FYI, There is a typo in the first word of paragraph six. Unurprisingly, campaigns challenging Church teaching on the sanctity of the beginning and end of life…)
‘We largely have Christianity to thank for our faltering modern belief that human life is sacred’. Yeah. Like the ‘final solution’ of the Cathars, the Inquisition, the burning of Michael Servetus (and his books) by Calvin over a disagreement about the nature of the Trinity. I will not take lectures on morality and the sanctity of human life from the spiritual and theological heirs of these delightful Christian exemplars.
Yes, not to mention those sinners and their b4st4rd5, condemned to the ‘care’ of psychopathic ‘sisters’, to be worked to death and thrown into mass graves. And the article goes downhill from there, flailing about with a litany of all the usual bogeymen. Harrington is against the rest of us having a choice. End of story, and thanks for letting us know.
You condemn those who stand condemned by Christian teachings. I wonder if you condemn Christianity’s founder? You may not believe that he was the Son Of God.
But by any measure, he was a remarkable person whose teachings demand a very high standard of integrity, courage and honesty with one’s self.
There are far too many issues surrounding the control by one person on the existence of another person to resolve anything in a single article.
Christianity has held back society century after century. I read somewhere that science would be 300-500 years more advanced had it not been for Christianity.
When it comes to assisted dying, Christianity stands in the way of compassion for those who are in pain and anguish locked in a horrific prison. To deny someone suffering from the horror of motorneuron disease the right to end their suffering early is truly cruel. God doesn’t exist. He should have NO part in the formation of our laws.
There will come a time, when we will look back with astonishment that we allowed people to live out their last in agony all in the name of Jesus and his dad.
This Bill needs to be passed.
You read somewhere? Well, can’t argue with Vulcan logic like that.
Richard Carrier. He’s an American historian. No relation to Spock.
We would still believe that the earth was the centre of the universe if we hadn’t had scientists who risked their lives by challenging their nonsense.
Oh you read that somewhere. Must be true then. Whether you like it or not, Christianity has been a foundation of our laws and society for centuries, while its insistence on the reality of objective truth has been the bedrock of enlightenment values upon which modern scientific endeavor is built. It has done far more good than any atheistic, nihilistic philosophy could ever do. You may want to live in a world where life is not sacred; I don’t. Be careful what you wish for.
My source was Richard Carrier. The peer-reviewed historian who suggests that Jesus never actually existed. His work is very compelling. He suggests that Christianity evolved from, and along with many mystical cults of the time all of which had a messiah born to a virgin and died in a blood sacrifice. Basing our laws on these ancient fairytales is utter nonsense.
Richard Carrier is nothing of the sort. He is a pseudoscience who is not taken remotely seriously by mainstream academic opinion
Christians would say that because he dissects the bible with ruthless precision exposing the absurdity and lies contained within.
Milos, the scientific method was developed by believers in God. They recognised that the universe was created, not by capricious gods, but by an ordered mind. Order, ruled by measurable laws, has led to discovering how it all works. It’s the non-scientific ideas of paganism that holds science back such as there being no such thing as sexual dimorphism rather 100+ genders!
I can only assume you’re a paid-up member of the desert cult responsible for executing heretics for having the temerity to suggest that the earth span around the sun. For several centuries scientific progress was quashed by Christianities’ vicious grip. As for paganism and the old religions they worshipped gods in nature. The planet would be in far better shape if we believed that pollution was killing our gods. Instead, Christianity has us believing this life is a test for a make-believe fun park and first class lounge in the sky. The sooner these beliefs die the better.
Two things upon which I would like to comment if I may?
Science would be more advanced by 500 years if it hadn’t been held back?
Tosh! Science has developed at the speed it should, and sometimes gets it wrong, and therefore restrains itself. Much of science is reactive not proactive. I am thinking of the Covid vaccine here.
Secondly you say God does not exist, then state God should not have a role in determining our laws. Well, which? If God does not exist, your second part of that statement is illogical.
God doesn’t exist. Yet people who believe he does, base our laws on ancient fairytales written about him and his magician son. It’s all tosh as you say. We allow religion far too much privilege despite it clearly being codswallop.
I have no idea why religious types insist that morality can’t exist beyond religion.
As for science being held back, academics refer to periods where scientists were executed for heresy. Had that not been the case we would be centuries more advanced.
You beg the question of what you mean by “science”.
The Meacher Bill would cover terminally ill people with up to six months to live. Are we confident that this is the final word on the issue? Legislation is often amended, or replaced. Why six months? Why only the terminally ill? What about sufferers from chronic illnesses like Parkinson’s? Let’s at least be honest about where this may lead.
I usually appreciate Mary Harrington’s articles and her lucid way of thinking but this article is ideologically one-sided and intellectually underdone. Christianity has contributed lots of good things to the Western societies but also kept us back on many fronts. The assisted suicide is one of the latter cases. Get over it Mary – it’s time to finalise this endless debate and allow terminally ill and suffering people to decide if they wanted to die, and if their did, help them die with dignity. No-one else has more right to decide in their name, neither God nor human being.
I want to thank everyone in this debate, I have found it much more enlightening than any that I have seen in other media; an emotional topic discussed, for the most part, calmly . You have all given me much to think about – again thanks.
“those with terminal illnesses who refuse the Socratic way out are selfish parasites“ – well, speaking personally, yes I would be. And I think it’s ironic that many of the arguments that Mary advances are based on Christianity, whose founder pretty much chose to die.
I would have been more impressed, even though I disagree, if the head of the Church of England had argued against the bill on the grounds that life is given to us by god and we do not have the right to give it back when we want. As it was he went for the I think specious argument that a person of sound mind might be pressured by others to kill themselves. If so, surely the courts would investigate, and prosecute those thought to have “pressured” the near dead to hurry up and die.
I think I have the absolute moral right to leave the planet whenever I see fit, and I very much resent the state telling me I don’t.
Good article. Perhaps we need a wider debate on how much end-of-life terminal care we can afford going forward, so that there can be a consensus around end of life decisions for people suffering from diseases that would have killed them much sooner several decades ago.
“I don’t want to live in a world where ‘tough-minded’ right-liberals write op-eds implying that those with terminal illnesses who refuse the Socratic way out are selfish parasites.”
The social stigma against unwed mothers, which was the basis of the author’s tortured path to this conclusion, has largely disappeared. It’s not likely any new stigma will arise that requires responsibility for one’s choices, including a stigma that indigent elders should be killing themselves.
A few things:
“Unwanted babies were abandoned to die or be rescued by strangers: like Romulus and Remus, Rome’s mythical founders, who were raised by a wolf.” – The sentence suggests their founding of Rome was a myth but the raising by wolves was not.
“Socrates’ decision to drink hemlock rather than face exile,..” – Socrates was sentenced to death not exile.
“The “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of Christianity, picked up speed after World War I. ” Can a roar pick up speed particularly a melancholy one? If it could, would it sound less melancholic as it…sped up?
“…that far outstripped the number of accidental pregnancies forestalled by abortion.” The pregnancy is not forestalled in this case. The birth yes, not the pregnancy.
“..Christianity began fading in earnest…” usage of “in earnest” is always active suggesting here Christianity was itself really working hard at fading.
“At the same time, another US study shows that legal abortion drove a parallel decline in shotgun marriages ..” The study cited attributes contraception as the primary factor before abortion.
I’ll leave it there except to add that this piece might have included for balance the most famous and revered of modern Christians, Mother Theresa who founded and oversaw a number of very successful non-voluntary assisted dying centres in Calcutta welcoming both the terminally ill and those who might have been saved with medical intervention.
Thank you for weaving the issues of birth and death together. I consider as a society, if we reduce them both to functional and medical industry processes, our humanity is at peril. I would say life is fragile, a miracle,and therefore something sacred. It is awe inspiring to be in the presence of birthing and dying. They are the defining thresholds of human life and not just about the individual. Having been closely involved in both, and to be close to the ‘hard’ work of both is profound and ‘teaches’ all involved in how to navigate life better rather than just something to be controlled and tidied away out of sight, or just plain anxious about. While I had to endure the suffering of my husband dying of cancer, much was learnt and there were many ‘gifts’ for all involved, not least resourcing those of us left behind how to better understand where and how we need to follow. If he had just been euthanised at some appointed hour, it would have deprived us and him of a great teaching – that dying is an act, where the soul takes leave of the body over its given time scale (whether that be hours or days) – and that was deeply profound and resourcing.
Not sure the thrust of this article is on the money. Anyone who has cared for elderly relatives at their end of life ( 4 in last few years) will recognise the absolute necessity of some form of assisted dying. Regardless of resources, death can be uncontrollably painful, ugly and filled with suffering. And I believe much of that can be attributed to modern medicine’s obsession with ‘life for life’s sake’. Almost as if dying is an affront to medicine. Or doctors are too timid to embrace the notion that death is a natural result of living. Or worse, that people have no right to decide when to die.
The most shocking fact I learned from this current debate is how many terminally ill people attempt suicide and that 90%fail and go on suffering.
Do we have drug abusers to thank for the utterly ridiculous rules that prevent end of life palliative drugs being made more available when needed? You cannot have what is required for pain and suffering relief, only small amounts that have to be continually re-prescribed, risking periods where no drugs are available because docs aren’t on duty or pharmacies closed. Dying at home is a risky business.
For myself, I deeply resent the role of the state in my dying. What’s it got to do with you, I say. What business is it of yours? I should be allowed to die peacefully when and where I wish to at the natural end of my life, not the medically enhanced end in the control of doctors.
And the proposed new rules? My guess is that high court judges will be so busy with applications, that people will be dead and buried before they get permission for assisted dying. Cynical? Moi?
Another thoughtful and insightful article, I really like the parallels to the abortion debate which seem very clear eyed.
I mostly agree with this article: while being a libertarian myself and wholly persuaded that the existing arguments for assisted dying are sound and based wholly upon compassion for those unfortunate enough to be facing a miserable, drawn-out death, the institutionalisation of euthanasia is certain to result in a future where the disproportionate usage of shared resources by the elderly will come to be seen as unneccessary, selfish and unaffordable.
Should this happen it would be a tragic reversal of progress and would disqualify such a society from any claim to be civilised in the proper sense of the word.
This is a well thought out article and I commend the author, whilst disagreeing with her. Unwanted childbirth is a situation that can be avoided by contraception – which is free in most of the West. Abortion should not be used as an alternative – it is there for unplanned situations, however it must remain a woman’s right to choose. Assisted dying is at the other end of the scale and is mostly to do with the fact that people are living much longer and dying more badly. Dementia was uncommon when life expectancy was closer to 70 than to 90. People who wish to end their life should be able, with appropriate safeguards, to do so themselves if they can by the provision of the right substances. Those who are physically or mentally unable to do so, but who expressed a true desire to do so, again with appropriate safeguards should be helped.
Another brilliant article Mary.
My question remains without withholding medical intervention at some point, then with medical breakthroughs continuing to progress then the proportion of elderly people with be unsustainable and catastrophic for humankind. Something has to give and a grown up society needs people who have the ball to make the careful decisions that maintain a healthy community.
A sort of demolition ball, you mean? But cheap jibes aside, I agree with you, I would like to die when the die comes without much pain, without being a burden on my nearest and dearest, and in some dignity. And if I can’t do it myself then I should like somebody to help me. Or even if I can do myself, to do it cleanly in some place where nobody has to find me unexpectedly or clean up some mess.
That does not strike me as a big ask, and I understand all the contra arguments and the possible risks – which I think personally are much exaggerated but not non-existent. Nor does it strike me as anti-Christian – I am C of E in an old fashioned way and in my conscience I do not find that I am breaking any fundamental tenets.
But for God’s sake, and everybody else’s, lets have a calm debate which really listens to the views of all involved and gives as much discretion as possible to people to make their own decision.
Why not the nuclear bomb then? Let’s get rid of everyone that becomes an inconvenience.
Get a grip.
A globally collapsing birth rate?
Not according to this: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
The old and the vulnerable need protecting. Allowing this Assisted Dying Bill will undermine their value as people worth saving with expensive care. It will also undermine their value in their own minds. They will try to not be a nuisance and take the final sleeping draft like good citizens. It will also be in everyone’s minds when their various illnesses cost the NHS large sums. They will be more inclined to refuse treatment. So I agree that there is a very big financial element here.
What’s wrong with an individual choosing to be altruistic ?
Nothing. But the pressure to be so may be wrong
Who is to say which reasons are right or wrong in any individual case at any particular time ?
Surely it is the person who is doing the dying that does the final weighing up in their own minds.
All decisions we make, trivial or life changing involve inputs from our own minds and from outside. Our decisions are influenced by our own circumstances / feelings / biases (both conscious and unconscious) and these will change over time, even from day to day. There is no perfectly balanced place where these decisions take place.
Our ‘elders and betters’ are about as subtle as Dr Franknfurter in the Rocky Horror show where the main character hacks to death Eddie (a rival for the affections of his minions) as one of said minions pulls off his blood soaked rubber marigold gloves he says ‘it was a mercy killing’
So interesting and clear.
I don’t think Christians believe that everyone has a spark of the divine; rather, that humans are made in the image of God and that, as image bearers they should reflect God’s principles and not kill other people.
This link shows how there will never be a shortage of people eager to help others kill themselves – whatever the rules say. Any requirement for independent witnesses, doctors’ signatures, etc. can easily be circumvented, all it takes is a few suicide enthusiasts.
so “progressives” want the right to murder the unborn, render children sterile with hormone therapy and now to terminate the elderly. If these are the good guys i’d hate to see what the bad guys are up too.
Who needs a bill like this if you can simply get rid of Grandpa or Grandma with a Covid-jab (or a booster if it didn’t work out the first time around)? No safeguards needed and already practically mandatory. Safeguard your inheritance: kill the elderly in the name of public health and science.
British ethicist Baroness Mary Warnock said in 2008 in the Church of Scotland’s Life and Work magazine, in which she stated, “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives — your family’s lives — and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.”
Just think on this before leaping to support of assisted suicide. The Baroness has held many positions of influence in the U.K.
11