Assisted Dying A Bill currently before Parliament

The aim of the Bill  to enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided, at their request, with specified assistance to end their own life

Background to the Bill  A Parliamentary Commission reported that the current law on assisted dying is ‘inadequate and incoherent’  The Assisted Dying Bill has been introduced as a private member’s Bill  Without government backing it is unlikely to succeed  The government will use the progress of the Bill to determine public and professional opinion on the issue

Current situation  Assisted suicide – including handing someone a lethal dose of painkillers, or buying someone a plane ticket to Switzerland knowing that they intend to end their life – is illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison.  Assisted suicide is legal in Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg and Switzerland.

Current opinion Research suggests that  75% of the public want a change in the law on assisted suicide  66% of doctors do not support such a change  The British Medical Association is against the Bill

The Bill’s Proposals  ‘assisted dying’ would only be available to the terminally ill who are expected to die within 6 months  the individual must have signed a declaration in the presence of an independent witness

 the doctor expected to assist the death must countersign along with one other medical practitioner, both of whom must satisfy themselves that the prognosis is correct, the individual has a clear and settled intention to die, they have the capacity to make that decision, there has been no pressure on them, and they are fully informed of other care available

 the death cannot take place within 14 days of the declaration, which can be revoked at any time  the designated doctor may prescribe medicines to enable the person to end their own life  the individual must self-administer the medication, using a specially prepared device if necessary

Some things to think about  Given the very limited application of this suggested provision, is it intended to be a way of crossing the threshold of assisted suicide with the aim of extending its reach in the future? Is it easier to hold a firm line than fudge the boundaries like this?

 Are the boundaries already fudged in that medical practitioners are currently taking these decisions in many cases, either overtly with the family’s consent (eg. Liverpool Pathway) or by prescribing high doses of painkillers that are likely to result in death?  Is it fair to put doctors in this position (even with an opt-out clause)?

 The bill focuses exclusively on expected lifespan and not quality of life  This bill would not have helped many of the recent high profile cases – for example, those with ‘locked-in syndrome’ are not terminally ill, and some patients would not have the physical ability to self-administer

 Will the terminally ill feel a responsibility to family/care givers to ‘get it over with’?  We may have a theological understanding of life and death – is it reasonable to have such thinking influence law?  Is there a connection between this issue and abortion law? Are our views on the two consistent?

 Many people will have experience of good and bad deaths – is personal experience a good place from which to create law?  Given public opinion, is sticking with the current law a viable option?

Further information  Dignity In Dying  Care Not Killing