Opinion piece East London Advertiser 21 November 2024
An Australian relative recently told me how grateful a close friend had been for assisted dying laws. They operate in most Australian states. The story is a powerful counter to those who want to deny this right here.
His friend was riddled with terminal cancer. Australia’s palliative care provision is good. But even the best care could not make her pain bearable. Robust procedures were followed. An approved ‘death doula’ was on hand with medication she had requested. This had been prescribed to induce sleep and a pain-free death. She was of sound mind throughout. Unwilling to face another night of torment, she requested and took the drugs herself. She died peacefully in her own home at a time she chose with her nearest and dearest by her side.
It came as a bombshell when Stepney born MP Wes Streeting, now Secretary of State for Health, did a U turn and said he will vote against reform. He represents one of the most religiously conservative constituencies in the country, which he won by a narrow margin, and is a staunch Christian. But he cites poor palliative care in the UK as his key reason for changing his mind. Opposing assisted dying on this ground doesn’t withstand rational scrutiny.
There is no evidence that denying the right to choose will lead to an improvement in palliative care. There is no evidence that passing a law on assisted dying has adversely affected the provision of palliative care in any of the countries which have done so. If anything, the opposite is true. Critically, as the above story shows, even the best palliative care cannot relieve the pain suffered by every terminally ill patient. In those cases, lack of provision is a non-existent, irrelevant factor. Using it as a reason for denying the right to choose simply leads to protracting unbearable pain, and a horrific death. We wouldn’t treat animals like that.
Another big objection to reform is risk of coercion. The Bill details stringent safeguards which answer these concerns.
No safeguards or provision will ever persuade some people that the terminally ill should have a choice on assisted dying. They are a minority. Opinion polls show a large majority, including of the religious and the disabled, want the right to choose. It is unreasonable for that minority to stand in our way.
Paul Kaufman
Chairperson East London Humanists
