There is nothing progressive about unleashing state-sanctioned murder in the healthcare sector

Fix the NHS, properly fund palliative care, get social care right – and then we can debate this issue.

November 24, 2024, 4:31 pm(Updated 16:44)

A five-hour parliamentary debate this week could lead to one of the most important laws of this century when MPs hold a free vote on a private members’ bill to allow assisted suicide in the UK. The reform was previously supported by Sir Keir Starmer, enjoys popular support and is often seen as progressive. It was promoted by the wonderful lady Esther Rantzen, suffering from incurable cancer, with her usual campaign zeal. There are valid arguments on both sides of this moral minefield that deserve respectful consideration.

However, there should be no misconception about the consequences of unleashing state-sanctioned murder on our healthcare system. I would have preferred to write about almost any other issue this week, having returned to work after the anguish of my own daughter’s death.

But I researched assisted dying in Europe and North America, and advocated for patient safety and the rights of citizens with learning disabilities, inspired by it. Therefore, it was wrong to shy away from such seismic proposed changes in society. However the legislation is formulated, however limited the intentions, this reform will lead Britain down a slippery slope. Some campaigners are already arguing that the bill’s proposal to allow terminally ill adults aged six months or less to receive medical help to end their lives is too restrictive.

Experts expect challenges under human rights laws from patients whose terminal conditions prevent them from taking their own lives, rightly arguing that this amounts to discrimination. There will be emotional cases where parents will argue that suffering children cannot access such “treatment.”

We have seen elsewhere how the number of assisted living cases continues to rise after legalization. And how the rules could expand over time – to include children, couples wishing to die together, old people with dementia and young people with mental illness – despite initial promises to the contrary.

As one prominent ethicist in the Netherlands, which initiated the reform in 2002, said, their desire to help patients enduring the most painful death led them to launch “something that we have now discovered has more impact than we ever had before.” could imagine.”

Legalized euthanasia releases the genie from the bottle, while fundamentally changing the nature of healing with its oath to “do no harm.” This sends the message that murder is an acceptable form of treatment.

However, we know that doctors have difficulty predicting time of death for terminal illnesses—and that they, like judges, are fallible individuals who may make mistakes, succumb to pressure, or fail to recognize duress amid the daily clinical stresses.

Some will become fanatics about the cause – like the former obstetrician in Canada I interviewed earlier this year, who has helped more than 400 deaths since euthanasia was introduced eight years ago. Canada demonstrates the dangers—and political irresponsibility—of introducing such procedures into a struggling healthcare system like ours, with its long wait times, poor treatment outcomes and insufficient medical support. I spoke to patients who were being pushed by doctors to accept medically assisted deaths when life-saving treatments were available, and to an analyst who warned British MPs that euthanasia was being used to cut health care costs. Nearly two-thirds of their euthanasias are related to cancer, but they have shorter waiting times and better outcomes for the disease than in Britain.

Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting bravely opposes the bill on the grounds that it could harm existing services, while pointing out that the state of aged care means the NHS cannot always provide “real choice about assistance in dying.” .

I have seen the incredible support provided by palliative care providers in times of suffering and pain. Yet one in four patients do not receive such care – and, as palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke argues, it is “unconscionable” to offer citizens the choice to die if we cannot also offer them the care that can make life worth living.
Research shows that places that allow assisted dying increase palliative care provision significantly less than other states.

If Westminster really wants to demonstrate its progressiveness, how much better to develop this brilliant branch of medicine pioneered in Britain – along with the shamefully underfunded hospice movement – to ensure everyone has decent end-of-life care. And perhaps our politicians might want to finally fix the overburdened Social Security system, instead of constantly tearing it down?

There is also a question of trust – and whether we can really trust that politicians and regulators will be able to protect sick, elderly or disabled people who may face pressure to take their own lives after so many disturbing scandals have exposed abuse towards the weakest members of society.

Bert Keyser, a Dutch expert on assisted dying, said British experts were right to be skeptical when Holland pioneered reform because their predictions had come true. “Those who resort to euthanasia are sliding down a slippery slope that leads you irrevocably to the random killing of defenseless sick people,” he wrote in a medical journal.

Keep in mind that we live in a country where some of the worst malpractice scandals involved the mass murder of elderly patients and the health care system was left to rot. A country that still locks autistic and learning disabled citizens in psychiatric hellholes with the connivance of doctors.

Meanwhile, there are confirmed cases overseas of people being euthanized due to their autism or learning disabilities. And important data—even from places like Oregon, which is praised for its strict protections—suggest that people who choose to die often feel a burden on their families.

As an atheist and liberal, my concerns about euthanasia are more practical than ethical. But having seen the harsh realities of euthanasia abroad and reported on health care scandals at home, I am deeply wary of the consequences of introducing this technology here with our inept legislators, ineffective public services and public disdain for groups that might be targeted.

Fix the NHS, properly fund palliative care, fix social care, and we can discuss this issue with less fear.