Assisted Dying and Capital Punishment
A short personal piece to mark the introduction of the Assisted Dying Private Member's Bill into Parliament.
There are some people who oppose capital punishment in all circumstances, on principle. But there are plenty more, myself included, who would be fine for us to execute unrepentent serial child killers - if we could be sure of doing so with no errors, no miscarriages of justice and no mistakes.
But they recognise that in an imperfect, fallible, human justice system - as all our justice systems are - that certainty isn't possible. And so they oppose capital punishment because of the worry of executing an innocent; a deed that cannot be reversed.
There are others (and I'd include myself in this number) who worry about the wider impact on the justice system - such as juries being less likely to convict. This happened, before we abolished capital punishment. I’d rather a mass murderer get life in prison than be released because juries are reluctant to convict someone to be put to death.
When we think about assisted dying, campaigners always want us to focus on the perfect case. The case where there's no doubt about a person's own mind, where they are suffering greatly, and clearly wish to end it.
I have to say, personally, that if someone was in that situation, not acting under duress or pressure, of sound mind, shortly going to die and in agony, and decided to end it, I don't see what grounds I, personally, have to condemn it. But how can we be sure that's the case?
If assisted dying was legalised, what of all the many people who will be pressured by relatives, or friends, or even health workers? What of the many more who, despite no-one ever saying anything, feel they are a burden on those caring for them, and choose to end it?
Because people in that situation do often feel they are a burden. They feel it, even if there relatives are happy to care for them. And it will be the kindest, most compassionate people who are most likely to be victims.
How could we ever be sure someone felt no pressure? Just as we abolished capital punishment, because we can never be 100% sure of a criminal's guilt, how can we legalise assisted dying, when we can never be sure it is really a person's decision?
And what of the wider impacts? The impacts on a health service, and social care service, that is creaking at the scenes - and where too many people might see assisted dying as a 'safety valve'. How many checks will there really be?
How long before it is extended - as the experience in other countries shows us it surely will - to the mentally unwell, to children, and to those with diseases that are not terminal? Most people suffering from depression who commit suicide and survive, later regret the attempt.
We don't need to speculate here. We can see the appalling stories coming out of Canada, out of the Netherlands, and elsewhere. Where even health workers have suggested assisted dying to the sick and vulnerable who come to them for help.1.
In every other area of public policy, we're told to think of the side effects - of the unintended impact on the most vulnerable, the poor and the needy. This is - rightly - a strong concern, in particular, of those who consider themselves progressive.
So why, for assisted dying, are we told to ignore this? To foreground only those for whom the decision appears easy: the mentally strong, the wealthy, those who have supportive families and access to good healthcare? What of the others? Of the lonely, and poor, and friendless?
I know it's hard. I've watched family members die of dementia - it was terrible. I have compassion for anyone facing an awful, painful death who chooses to end it. I have no grounds or wish to condemn them. I certainly don't want them hunted down and punished.
But open the door to assisted dying, and it won't be only they who are affected. We will open a door to a floodgate of premature deaths. Of those whose departure is wrongfully hastened by the system, by poverty, by desperation, by the feeling of 'not wanting to be a burden.'
How many must be condemned to die wrongfully, so that some others can choose their time of departure? I suggest that, as with capital punishment, even one would be too many. But look at Canada. Look at the Netherlands. It would be far more than a few.
This piece began life as a twitter thread of mine that got some pick-up. I am republishing it here on the day a Private Member’s Bill is being introduced into Parliament. The Government has indicated it will make time for it and it will be debated over the coming months, potentially becoming law next year.
All the main parties have indicated that they will give their MPs a ‘free vote’ on this: this means that MPs can vote their conscience, rather than having to follow the party line. This means that for this subject, more than others, it is particularly worthwhile to write to your MP to let them know your thoughts. If you do have strong feelings about this, please do consider writing to your MP about it. And if you have friends or others who you think might be moved or persuaded by this piece, do share it with them.
Here are articles in the Guardian (left-leaning) and Spectator (right-leaning) on the situation in Canada. A short search can find many others. Deaths by assisted suicide in Canada are growing at c. 30% a year, year on year
:
Thank you Iain for this excellent piece. I had never thought before about a parallel between capital punishment and assisted dying, but I think your argument is spot on. The slippery slope is real, and no quantity of legislative safeguards and hedging can restrict so fundamental a shift in our law and practice to only the "ideal cases", if any such cases even exist.