So, we went to a debate about assisted dying the other night...

For once, a ‘serious’ nothing-to-do-with-DLDown-or-music post. These are simply my own opinions/observations/reactions to some of the things that we heard discussed (at least as I understood them). I can’t claim to have any kind of experience of this, but it was very clear how emotionally charged the topic is. I don’t intend to belittle any of the anguishing experiences some of those present had evidently been involved in.

For a little background, you may wish to have a glance at:

Assisted Dying: A Good Death or a Choice too Far

Margo MacDonald's proposed End of Life Choices bill

Also, this post highlights a few of the grey areas (the blogger's views, not necessarily mine).


It was fascinating. We heard emotional statements put forward by both speakers, one very much ‘against’, one very much ‘for’ the legalisation of assisted dying (or since it involves the individual’s choice, assisted suicide is probably a more exact, if more aggravating, term). It certainly raised more questions than it answered, but maybe that’s not a bad thing.

Obviously, I can’t tell you what stance I would take if it were me in that situation, either as a suffering individual, or as a friend or family member - I just haven’t been put in that situation. However, over the course of the evening, I found myself inclining more towards the ‘against’ arguments, if only because the scope of the speaker’s answers and reasoning were so much wider.

So here’s a few observations/questions which I would have liked to raise, had I thought of them at the time, and/or had I not thought they would only aggravate an already emotional discussion:

1. It was ‘agreed’ that the proposed bill in question not only deals with terminally ill patients suffering from a painful or debilitating condition, but would also encompass others including those whose mental, existential or physical condition makes them not want to live any longer:
   
   
   
   • How and where can we draw the lines?
   • Is a person suffering from, for example, depression (which may be temporary), or Alzheimer’s (which is not), in a position to make a rational decision about this?
   • What safeguards would be put in place to protect the vulnerable, or those who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have “become a burden to others”?


2. Should it be medicalised? Or is it a social issue?


• Who can carry out such assistance?
• doctors?
• friends?
• family members?
• What is the difference between assisted dying and euthanasia? And the cessation of life-support?
• Would doctors be required to assist, or could they opt out?
• Would the inclusion of assisting “patients”‘ deaths change medicine from being solely a healing profession, and can we allow that to happen?


3. The ‘for’ speaker referred often to ‘autonomy’ and ‘the right to choose the time, manner and place of our death’:
   
   
   
   • What is autonomy? In what sense does any human live in isolation? Is there a distinction between autonomy and selfishness, and if so, what?
   • Are these really rights? No, really? Where do they come from? Who grants them?


4. The ‘against’ speaker spoke extensively about the impact of such legislation on wider society:
   
   
   
   • What is the value of a human being? How can we judge it? Do we want to head towards a culture where your worth is dependent on your use to society? To what extent are we in that culture already?
   • In what way would this particular law change be a step onto the ‘slippery slope’ of changing other laws, and changes in attitudes and society.
   • What is the potential for abuse of the system, allowing murders to be veiled as compassionate acts?


5. The ‘for’ speaker effectively dismissed the concept of ‘the sanctity of life’ as a deluded faith-based anachronism (and thus effectively dismissed the opinions of any person of any faith into the bargain):
   
   
   
   • Is an atheistic belief any less an act of faith than a theistic one?
   • Does the concept of ‘the sanctity of life’ (with or without that grand title) resonate with those who are atheists or who profess no faith?
   • Can you legitimately leave out from this debate the opinions of those with some sort of faith? (Perhaps in this country the ‘faithful’ make up only a minority - looking at the world as a whole, it is almost certainly atheists who are in the minority.)
   • How do the views of a person with faith apply to this debate? For example, should all members of a certain faith adhere to a particular ‘party line’?

In my impression, the ‘for’ speaker was on the defensive a bit, accusing her opponent of “brainwashing” the audience with emotive examples, before going on to do exactly the same thing with equally emotive case studies from the other side.

To be honest, both speakers had some pretty bald statements which frustrated me, but one particular “I rest my case” from the ‘for’ speaker set me screaming (internally!) “What case? What case? All you’ve really said is “I think we should do this, therefore we should do it - it’ll provide immunity for few individuals” and backed it up with a couple of isolated examples which do nothing to address any of the bigger societal and legal implications!” Her entire contribution to the discussion on new laws opening the way to other law changes, society and attitude changes was “there is no slippery slope”. That’s not debate, that’s denial.

But I think what swayed me most was this:

On the whole it felt like the ‘for’ case was based around “I”, whereas the ‘against’ case was based around “how can we preserve the value of the individual, protect the vulnerable, and work to the best of our abilities to improve people’s situations”. Maybe that’s just me submitting to emotional arguments, but I know which of those appeals to me more.

As I said before, I can’t honestly say that I might not sway the other way if it were me or one of my loved ones.

love,
J




(As a final footnote, it was also interesting to observe the distinct polarisation between the reactions of old and young (I’m obviously generalising, but the trend was quite evident):

There were several groups of older people who had obviously been through some incredibly difficult and distressing times. However, while trying not to belittle that suffering, judging by the muted cries and sharp intakes of breath that greeted the ‘against’ speaker, they were obviously having difficulty hearing past the emotion, and weren’t taking in what he actually said about the wider implications. The younger people seemed, on the whole, much more uncertain, but also much more open to debate. I suspect that’s a reflection of genuine emotional involvement with these issues rather than a case of stubbornness growing with age - at least I hope so!

One of the most encouraging contributions to the debate was from a gentleman who is a retired police officer. He appealed for calm rational debate. I don’t know if that’s possible, but I think we need to try.)