by Kevin Meagher
Tellingly, the House of Commons website carries a warning about the research briefing on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, due to receive its Second Reading in the House of Commons today.
‘This briefing discusses issues around suicide which some readers may find distressing,’ it intones in bold writing. It’s grim subject matter to be sure, but there is still a need for candour. We are talking about ending human life, courtesy of the state’s healthcare professionals. What could be more distressing?
The proposed legislation would ensure that two doctors assess each request for an assisted death, ensuring the candidate had a ‘clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life’ and that they have reached this decision voluntarily, without pressure. If both doctors agree, the person may apply to the High Court for approval.
Kim Leadbeater the Labour backbencher promoting the Bill, is merely the latest campaigner seeking to alter the law in this area, following previous failed attempts by former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, in 2014 and former Labour MP, Rob Marris, in 2015.
Nothing about this issue is new.
‘Assisted dying’ – euthanasia in old money – remains an ethical Rubicon for our society, and one with ramifications beyond whether we allow a small number of patients in extremis and bound to expire the option of doing so earlier than nature intended.
For once we redefine the relationship between physician and patient in such a profound way, the door is opened to deeper questions and wider applications.