‘’You know, a lot of politicians talk about family values, but I think how your parents die is an important family value,’ writes Bill Clinton in his latest memoir Citizen, quoting a young woman who worked as a flight attendant on his first post-presidential shuttle out of La Guardia airport; both of her parents had gotten sick with no one to take care of them but herself and her sister, anf she availed of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the very first bill signed into law by President Clinton in February 1993.
The sentiment of this line is very relevant to our present time, as Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill on assisted dying progresses through parliament. At the heart of this debate is the concept of dignity, which is a concept at the heart of all human existence. Indeed, the very first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states emphatically that ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’ If we believe in the dignity of individuals, then it is beholden on us to accept their autonomy within their own sphere of existence and their superior knowledge regarding their own status and affairs.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill, which passed its second reading in the House of Commons last Friday, has been contentious. ‘It is impossible to build effective safeguards to prevent vulnerable people from an early death due to coercive control,’ said former LibDem leader Tim Farron during the Commons debate. ‘Soft coercion or in desperation due to the failure of society to provide adequate palliative care.’ Liz Carr, actress and disability rights campaigner, has raised concerns that people will opt to end their life rather than live as a burden to their loved ones.
Firstly, one must question on what authority Tim Farron can make any statement as to the nature of ‘free will,’ the existence or lack thereof of which is one of the greatest philosophical debates in human history (Book 1, in fact). Secondly, it ought to be considered that if someone would rather die ‘prematurely’ than live as a burden, that could well be a legitimate choice. Living with the feeling that one is a burden would most definitely be a situation where one is being denied their proper dignity. The philosopher Peter Singer argued the same, that it would be perfectly rational for a person, mindful of their own mind and circumstance, to wish to avoid living the very last six months of their life as an invalid; he cited cases from the US state of Oregon where the majority of people who opt for assist dying do so to avoid a loss of autonomy or loss of ability to do the things they enjoy. After all, what is the virtue of living if one is unable to do any living?
Furthermore, in the immediate term, it should be recognised that the safeguards contained within this bill appear most circumspect in nature; in the broader expanse of time, it must be recognised that this is will not be the last piece of legislation in the lifetime of this parliament (no matter how many millions sign a petition), let alone the century and centuries to come. If a situation should arise that vindicates Farron’s judgement that these safeguards are insufficient, then a new bill must and will be forthcoming. No legislation is ultimate. That is the business of government: it never stops. Leadbeater’s bill itself recognises this, as one article stipulates that the law, should it become law, will be held subject to review after it’s first ten years.
Under the proposed legislation, a person over the age of eighteen would be able to take life-ending medication provided they are likely to die within the next six months; two doctors would have to agree that the person in question is mentally able to make such a decision, and has no chance of recovery; a High Court judge would then have to confirm that the decision is voluntary and that all over criteria have been met. Once the decision to die has been taken, the person in question would then have a fortnight to mull it over before finalising it.
As humans are an inherently hopeful species, many have pointed out that a six month terminal diagnosis is not set in stone, and people have lived on in defiance for years. Former President Jimmy Carter was placed on hospice care two years ago, usually indicative of someone with only six months to live; he turned 100 in October. However, this only serves as evidence that a universal ruling on these matters is the easy way out of a difficult discussion, which for a parliamentarian is unforgivable; many people will not make it to even six months, and may spend their last three or four in an inhumane agony.
The law, as it stands, is very convenient for parliamentarians who would rather avoid deep and difficult conversations; much like the issue of abortion, criminalisation will only push this matter into the shadows. The Campaign for Dignity in Dying approximates that 650 people a year kill themselves, before being incapacitated by terminal illness. Such people have clearly made their choice, to force them to live in pain beyond that would be tyrannical decision masquerading as morality. If someone has made the decision to end their life on their terms then surely it is better they be allowed to do on their terms to the fullest extent: to slip away peacefully at home, to say their goodbyes to their loved ones, rather than having to skulk off in the night to a train station at off-peak hours, as has happened previously. To reiterate the sentiment of Bill Clinton’s flight attendant, how people die is an important family value.
History of Suicide in Law
Frank Skinner, in his Poetry Podcast episode on Sylvia Plath, spoke of how he had stopped using the phrase ‘committed suicide’ after speaking to a woman whose son had killed himself. She persuaded him of her case that ‘committed’ is an archaic adjective stemming from a time when suicide, of all manners, was not only a crime but also a sin; the last thing a grieving person needs in that most difficult of situations is to imagine their loved one as a criminal who is burning in hell. Skinner argued that reading and studying poetry is valuable because it gives us a sensitivity to language as an ever-evolving thing and prevents us from becoming stagnant in our thoughts.
Self-killing was originally decriminalised, in England and Wales, by the Suicide Act 1961. Like Leadbeater’s proposal, it was a private member’s bill introduced by Charles Fletcher-Cooke and the vote that passed it into law was left as a conscience vote to individual MPs: Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was against, whereas his Home Secretary RA ‘Rab’ Butler was for it.
Introducing the bill for a third reading in the Commons, Fletcher-Cooke said ‘this bill has been universally welcomed and yet practically unnoticed, perhaps because it was universally welcomed.’ He stated that the purpose of the bill was to remove the ‘stigma’ of crime from attempted suicide and ‘thus changes a very ancient law.’ He said that just because he sought to remove the matter of suicide from criminal courts ‘it in no way lessens, nor should it lessen, the respect for the sanctity of human life which we all share.’ He suggested that the legislation was necessary for the situation, as it was, meant that there was a proportion of people who were not being reached by the Mental Health Act, because they would not seek treatment voluntarily and could not be persuaded to do so by their friends and family.
This demonstrates that no piece of legislation exists in isolation but rather is plugged into a complex, intricate system of rights and regulations that seek to provide cover for ever possible outcome and scenario that might arise in the course of the daily life of the nine billion people on the planet. Government is no small job. The safeguards outlined in Leadbeater’s bill appear to measure up to a careful and conservative sum, which has the potential to avoid a great deal of suffering for a great many people, but this will in no way be the end of the matter and all people, but especially politicians and those who seek to be politicians, have a vital responsibility keep thinking about this issue, keep discussing it, reviewing philosophical discourse past, present, and future, in the interests of the unobtainable goal but eternal duty of achieving a more perfect statute of law.
Fionnbharr Rodgers has written articles, poems, and a short story for History Ireland, Northern Slant, Slugger O’Toole; A New Ulster, Blackbird, Blackbox Manifold; and Stoneboat Literary Journal.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
