- Better Way says Kim Leadbeater could have brought forward a truly progressive proposal as it urges MPs to oppose her Assisted Dying Bill.
- Statements from experts in the fields of disability advocacy, psychology, sociology, law and ethics, and palliative medicine are included below.
CAMPAIGNERS have described Westminster assisted suicide legislation as a wasted opportunity as they urge parliamentarians not to support a change in the law.
Speaking ahead of a Second Reading debate on Friday, Dr Miro Griffiths, spokesman for the Better Way campaign and an expert adviser on disability policy, said:
“Kim Leadbetter could have used this opportunity to pursue progressive legislation to facilitate access to palliative care and hospice provision or ensure necessary resource allocation for individuals with significant health conditions. Instead, she has sought to create a system where marginalised people who lack proper support have the offer of a state-assisted early death.”
‘There is no way to make this safe’
Dr Miro Griffiths
He added: “Proponents of ‘assisted dying’ say that a UK law will be ‘safe’, with none of the abuses seen in other countries. Our campaign rejects this claim. ‘Assisted dying’ is inherently and unavoidably unsafe. There is no way to rule out abuses and mistakes, coercion, and people dying through pressures arising in society. Allowing this practice would give rise to profound injustices.
“The injustices seen under a UK ‘assisted dying’ law would affect disabled people, people in poverty, people who are isolated and lonely, and many others. No amount of legal drafting can rule out citizens choosing to end their lives because they lack sufficient support to go on living. This in itself should prevent a change in the law.”
“Doctors warn that ‘assisted dying’ would undermine palliative care for everyone. Psychiatrists warn of a harmful shift in our societal response to suicide. And sociologists caution that a change in the law may open the door to more permissive legislation in years to come. The tragic experience of other nations suggests it is a matter of when, not if, laws expand.
“We believe there is a better path for the UK than assisted suicide. This involves ensuring that those living with terminal illnesses have the support they need. Working towards a more accessible, inclusive, and participatory society for disabled people. And bolstering suicide prevention and mental health support. We urge UK politicians to take this approach.”
Expert warnings
The Better Way campaign is supported by experts in a number of fields who believe assisted suicide is the wrong path for the UK.
A series of statements are included below. To request an interview with an expert, contact: admin@betterwaycampaign.co.uk
Allan House, emeritus professor of liaison psychiatry at the University of Leeds, said:
Professor Allan House
“My main concern is the inadequate medical assessment required as a response to somebody who is saying they want to take their own life. No more is mandated than to check they have mental capacity and that nobody is obviously forcing them to make the request. This would be nothing like acceptable in any other area of clinical practice.
“I am concerned that the Bill does not even specify exactly what interventions are allowed. For example, what does assistance in using a medical device mean for somebody so disabled that they require a proxy to sign the forms? What is a doctor allowed or supposed to do if somebody has not died hours after ingestion of prescribed drugs or if they wake up?”
Dr Juliet Spiller, a consultant in palliative medicine based in Edinburgh, said:
Dr Juliet Spiller
“Once we make suicide a medical treatment that can be offered and prescribed to those with terminal illness who are vulnerable and fearful of dying badly, we will open a terrifying Pandora’s Box that can never be shut again. In more than twenty years of palliative practice, I have seen many patients outlive their prognosis of six months, and some still alive even years later.
“I have also seen countless patients come through despair and challenging symptoms to a time of valued living and an end of life that was dignified, comfortable and peaceful with their loved ones closer than ever before. The political messaging in this campaign that those with terminal illness only have the option of dying in agony or travelling to Switzerland is absolutely wrong and misleading and is actually causing harm to already fearful and vulnerable people.
“As a palliative medicine consultant with more than two decades of experience caring for patients and their families, I know this Bill is unsafe and unworkable. We mustn’t underestimate the impact of the sense of societal burden this Bill would place on those with the greatest difficulties accessing appropriate health and social care. This is the wrong intervention at entirely the wrong time give the current crisis in health and social care and it will cause harm to the most vulnerable.”
Professor June Andrews, an expert in the care of older, frail people and people with dementia, said:
Professor June Andrews
“Legalising assisted suicide can only end badly for all of us. As a dementia care professor, I often hear older people say they want to avoid being a burden. This legislation as drafted reinforces the idea that their families, and the health system, would be better off without them. This sort of law does more harm than good.”
Dr Mary Neal, an expert in medical law and ethics, and Reader in Law at the University of Strathclyde said:
Dr Mary Neal
“This Bill is being sold as having ‘the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world’, but those whose job it will be to implement the ‘safeguards’ have raised the alarm. Neither doctors nor judges have any way of ensuring an absence of coercion, there is no guarantee of any expert assessment of mental capacity, and the workload the Bill would impose on the healthcare and judicial systems – both already in crisis – would be unmanageable. The ‘strictest safeguard anywhere in the world’ is the law we have at the moment. To disturb the current law in any way would be extremely dangerous, as we see when we look overseas.
“In addition, the Bill does not adequately protect professional conscience. Doctors who object to discussing assisted suicide as an option with their patients could still be obliged to refer the patient on to another doctor to have such discussions, all kinds of indirect involvement in the assisted suicide process are not protected, and there is no provision for conscientious objection by judges, who would have to give the final go ahead. The perspectives of the very many people for whom assisted suicide is anathema have simply not been taken seriously.”
Dr Yuan Yi Zhu, Assistant Professor of International Relations and International Law at Leiden University, said:
Dr Yuan Yi Zhu
“The Leadbeater Bill’s so-called “safeguards” are made of chocolate. They have been comprehensively debunked by senior jurists, coroners, doctors, and lawyers.
“Not even the Bill’s proponents believe in their efficacy, which is why they have avoided answering any of the many criticisms offered by experts.
“In fact, assisted suicide lobbyists are already indicating that they want to expand the Bill’s remit as soon as it is passed. For the sake of the most vulnerable members of society, MPs must decisively reject this dangerous Bill.”
Dr Ashley Frawley, a sociologist and visiting researcher at the University of Kent, said:
Dr Ashley Frawley
“Assisted dying may sound good in principle, but it’s terrible in practice. This is, perhaps, one reason why supporters of Kim Leadbeater’s Bill are asking MPs to vote through the Bill at Second Reading even if they still have concerns. The more you think about this issue, the more complex and troubling it becomes – especially when you consider the social context for it.
“For assisted suicide to work, we have to believe in the profound value of humanity in all its aspects so that the practice is never, ever wrongly pushed or misused. Can we honestly say we live in a society that believes this? I don’t think so. At many times, it appears that we are pulling in the opposite direction – away from a world where every life has equal value.
“We live in a society that doesn’t always value the lives of disabled people; a society where older people are sometimes viewed as an intolerable burden. In this context, the idea of state-assisted suicide is alarming. It would not take long for the ‘choice’ of an assisted death to become an ‘expectation’. I would urge MPs not to open this Pandora’s Box.”
ENDS
About Better Way
Better Way campaign opposes assisted suicide, sets out an alternative vision, and provides a platform for marginalised voices. The campaign is supported by experts in several fields including medicine, disability advocacy, and sociology.
Find out more: Website| Social media
Contact us: admin@betterwaycampaign.co.uk