Main Edition
US
FR
October 24, 2024 - 7:00am
“Everyone is a conservative about what he understands best,” suggested the distinguished historian Robert Conquest in one of the aphorisms that have become known as Conquest’s Three Laws Of Politics. And he was surely right — I have come across hard-Left theorists who nevertheless oppose on principle all changes to the laws of cricket.
It is therefore striking that both Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood have publicly opposed Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s new assisted dying bill — supposedly against the advice of Cabinet Office civil servants. The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care are two of the departments whose work and employees would be most directly affected by the legalisation of assisted suicide.
These two voices of opposition are reflective of what appears to be growing cross-party scepticism about the idea of assisted suicide. The lazy assumption, endlessly repeated by supporters, that opposition is a matter of religious dogma is now untenable. Academic Yuan Yi Zhu, one of the first to highlight for British readers the terrible abuses happening under Canada’s MAiD regime, does not appear to be a religious believer. Nor is the journalist Sonia Sodha, a strong critic of the proposals. The indefatigable disability activist Liz Carr, a veteran campaigner against euthanasia, is likewise not guided by faith — only a clear-eyed view of the vulnerability of disabled people when death is made a treatment option.
As a strong opponent of assisted suicide, I was very pessimistic when Leadbeater’s bill won the private members’ ballot. There have been numerous similar proposals in the last 20 years, and although they were all defeated eventually, some were close-run affairs. The tide often seems to be running against us. It is hard to persuade Parliamentarians to oppose what appear to be compassionate and liberalising measures, especially when misleading opinion polls are used to claim huge public support for assisted suicide. Of course, such polls generally don’t give respondents anywhere near enough information about the proposals they are being asked to support.
However, things may be looking up. Even many social liberals — with conventional Left-wing views on matters such as abortion, gay rights and secularism — are unhappy with removing the legal prohibition on medical professionals directly and intentionally ending the lives of their patients. With an ageing population, a struggling NHS, and an underfunded care home sector, they quite rightly see the danger of such a move. The appalling situation in Canada demonstrates beyond doubt, to those with eyes to see, that some slopes are indeed slippery and that it is very difficult to maintain appropriate safeguards.
Along with the lead taken by Streeting and Mahmood, this may well have an effect on Labour MPs. Traditionally, votes on “social issues” are not whipped, because they are considered matters of individual conscience. I have severe reservations about this convention, because it enables governments to ease through sweeping social changes while avoiding accountability for them. But it does perhaps have advantages. For one, it may actually encourage Parliamentarians to think through their own opinions and to ask themselves searching questions, rather than simply relying on their leadership for easy answers.
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.
Subscribe“Even many social liberals — with conventional Left-wing views on matters such as abortion, gay rights and secularism — are unhappy with removing the legal prohibition on medical professionals directly and intentionally ending the lives of their patients.”
It was ‘conventional Left-wing views’ on abortion that got us here in the first place. We’ve been on that slippery slope since the 1960s.
It’s taken far too long to “get here”.
Abortion is none of your business
Whose business is it?
The woman whose body carries the conceptus. The same bodily autonomy principles apply to assisted suicide
You are Thatcherite then – “There is no such things as society.” Yet I imagine you absolutely loath her.
Your thinking is rudimentary and sophisticated. Like her I believe in the orimacy of individual choice But I also believe that these choices should only be constrained if harm to others is demonstrated. Abortionfails this test unless you think that life begins at conception which I do not. I also think that if you are to have welfare funded by redistribution then it shpuld not fund reproduction of the feckless. Allowing abortion up to a very high time limit plus contraception and no funding of social housing for those who choose to reproduce will help balance the population in the long run alongside appropriate immigration policies.
“these choices should only be constrained if harm to others is demonstrated. Abortion fails this test unless you think that life begins at conception which I do not”
When does it begin then? Birth?
Speaking personally, my view is that the relevant time is “when the fetus is viable outside the womb”.
Harm to others? You mean like forcing people to help pay for people to commit suicide? And there are a lot more harmful aspects to consider also.
The cost of the “green needle” itself is miniscule. What other “harmful aspects” are you talking about?
I can’t speak for Douglas Redmayne, but I thought Thatcher was brilliant!
Only a woman can murder her unborn child legally and that’s the sadness. What about the right of the child as it’s a sliced up in-utero or left to choke on the slab? The conceptus, what a euphemism.
It is not, at that point, a “child”.
Is it the baby’s business? Does the woman reproduce through parthenogenesis?
It seems to be my business when it comes to collecting taxes for healthcare, child benefit, school fees, social housing etc. etc. so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be my business when it’s decided to terminate that life instead.
I am a “conventional Right-winger” (Thatcherite/Reaganite), and I support both abortion and VAD.
There seems now to be a plethora of people who are telling us what is good for us – how to behave with people we don’t like, how to stay away from work if we have mental problems, how (if you are a woman) all men are evil, how to drive everywhere at 20mph for no apparent reason, which social media channels are bad for us, how we will feel better if we give away all our wealth to African dictators, how we don’t really need to see doctors if we are ill, how we can’t deport foreign nationals to make space in our gaols, how to pretend that men are women, how our flags are not something to be proud of…..
Now those same do-gooders are telling us that we shouldn’t believe in assisted dying for ourselves. Does this make them feel good?
Umm, I’m pretty sure these are definitely NOT the “same do-gooders”
Feel free to kill yourself any time. Not sure I want to pay for hired killers, especially when it is inevitable that the situation would degenerate as in Canada.
I hear a lot about how awful the Canadian laws are, but that’s mostly from non-Canadians. Whenever I hear from a Canadian, they seem happy enough with their laws.
There are a lot of high-level memes on Canada being chucked around uncritically.
It’s Utili(Total)arianism, the greater good and all that. They can never come out with their actual aims, they’re happy to obfuscate and employ the “motte & bailey” as a means to an end.
Yeah me too, I’m very disappointed by anyone who promotes death of the weak defenceless and in some eyes the inconvenient. Dame Chimneypot Smokealot Rantzen wants to die? Fine, carry on, you don’t need a law to help you do it.
Who is “promoting death of the weak and defenceless”? What is being promoted is allowing those who are of sound mind and terminally ill to chose the time of their own deaths.
Unfortunately many of the voters on here don’t appear to want to understand any subtlety or distinctions in this debate. The quality of the comment trails on this subject seem as poor as the old Leave/Remain tribal fights.
You.
Credit where credit is due to Shabana Mahmood and to Wes Streeting. Now let them end this Government’s assisted dying of four thousand pensioners due to the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Payment. Let them end this Government’s assisted dying of children and other civilians in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. And let us see the colour of Streeting’s money on palliative care.
In 2022, a fundraiser for a future Streeting Leadership campaign was held at the Covent Garden penthouse of Man in the News, Lord Alli. At that time, Streeting’s running mate was to have been Kim Leadbeater. But today, Leadbeater, a backbench MP, not only has a Chief of Staff, but has him in the person of Lance Price, long-term BBC correspondent, Special Adviser to Tony Blair as Prime Minister, and Director of Communications for the Labour Party during the 2001 General Election campaign. Think on.
Wishful thinking. I expect this to pass, perhaps with the help of a few Tories and many of the 72 Liberal Democrats
Let’s hope you are right.
Well, if most of Labour and most of the Lib Dems vote for it, it will pass.
The proposal as it stands much more controlled than Canadian position and certainly insufficient for many on the ‘pro’ side.
I think what we might see is Parliament at it’s best. The thought and consideration will be greater, and how legislation goes through multiple stages of refinement important, if indeed it even gets past 1st reading. We may well see good reasons for how and why our legislative process developed as it has. Suspect too the debates may also be one’s of some historic importance once perspective settles.
Let’s hope so (that Parliament rises to the occasion).
I agree that the time-proven Parliamentary process should be followed. As long as those executing it are up to the job. But the MPs we have these days aren’t quite the same calibre they used to be. Nor do they have the breadth and depth of life experience that MPs in the past used to have. Still, perhaps they’ll learn on the job (a perfectly valid way of learning, though perhaps not ideal in this case with higher stakes and limited time). Or perhaps we’re relying on the House of Lords here for sober experience and “reality checking”.
Note: if everyone on the ‘pro side’ is satisfied, we can be certain it’s gone too far, too fast.
The important thing is to get something on the stature books. It can always be amended later.
I think the contention MPs not of previous calibre a bit rose-tinted. There were an awful lot with poorer attendance records in the past, too much old Boys network, and an awful lot you never heard a thing from. If you just look at how much better Select Committees are it suggests our MPs are appreciably more engaged. Obviously a few poorer apples exist in all organisations
Backgrounds have changed a bit too. Less on Tory side and more on Labour side as power and funding of specific MPs by Unions reduced. A greater proportion of population gone onto Higher and Further Education so not surprise that’s also reflected in Parliament. Public service can compromise time someone may prefer to spend focus on developing a Business etc, but that does not diminish the former.
HoL will have a role in this debate and should have some good inputs, but the whole patronage behind it remains open to abuse. And we don’t need 900 of them claiming expenses.
Agree with your last point. Think we may find we land on a wise British compromise.
Let’s hope so. There is so much misinformation and speculation around that needs to be unwound.
Hopefully this vote will be whipped. A lot of civilised countries have already taken this step (including Australia, where I live), and the UK is something of a laggard. Those who oppose assisted dying should take comfort from the fact that it won’t be compulsory.
Absolutely not. This is just foolish. Completely the wrong way to go on something like this and would discredit and undermine acceptance of any change.
If this proposal has popular support, it will pass without whipping.
I’m in principle in favour of some change here. But it has to be done properly and with consent.
The greater danger right now is a practical one – that what is done either goes too far or (much higher risk in my view) is not adequately drafted and reviewed and results in bad legislation. The competence record of recent governments with new legislation (far too much – at least 10x too many new laws – and very poor quality) doesn’t inspire confidence. But proper, open debate and a free vote is the best way forward.
I’m concerned though that this is going to be rushed and botched.
I don’t doubt it has popular support among the people, but does it have popular support among the weak-kneed flip-floppers who constitute Britain’s political class?
“Those who oppose assisted dying should take comfort from the fact that it won’t be compulsory.”
You think the state will continue to fund end-of-life palliative care, even to the inadequate extent it does now, if it finds itself able to argue that the patient has selfishly refused the option of such neat and humane “assistance” and instead continues to be a drain on national resources?
Those calling for the legal ‘right’ to die will eventually see it turn into the societal and cultural ‘duty’ to die.
Hysterical nonsense
“Those who oppose assisted dying should take comfort from the fact that it won’t be compulsory.”
You think the state will continue to fund end-of-life palliative care, even to the inadequate extent it does now, if it finds itself able to argue that the patient has selfishly refused the option of such neat and humane “assistance” and instead continues to be a drain on national resources?
Yes, I do. They continue to fund it in Australia. Why wouldn’t they continue to fund it in the UK?