Occasionally a parliamentary bill emerges on a topic that ignites and divides public opinion. This Friday 11 September one comes before the Commons.
I believe the assisted dying bill – allowing some terminally ill people to choose how and when they die – would be transformative, offering dignity to dying people and reducing their suffering.
The bill’s scope is actually quite modest, with numerous safeguards.
It only applies to adults of sound mind who have a terminal illness, with a life expectancy of less than six months.
Two doctors and a High Court judge would need to be satisfied of the person’s eligibility, and that he or she had made a fully informed decision, before assisted dying would be allowed.
A 14 day ‘cooling-off’ period would apply, between the High Court agreement and the medicine being taken to the person – who then takes it themselves. It cannot be administered by any third party. If the person then chooses not to, it is taken away.
So I reject the arguments of those who say this bill represents the thin end of a wedge or a slippery slope. I genuinely believe that is not the case.
My own professional background, working in the NHS until May 2015, helped shape my views. A few years ago I worked on a project with some doctors and nurses who were trying to build, improve and develop the communication skills of clinicians to help patients better understand a respiratory disease called COPD. They were committed to helping patients understand how to live with their illness, and eventually how to die with it.
This involved opening conversations helping enlighten patients about their treatment choices, coping with flare-ups that might mean spending time in hospital, and empowering them to make choices. I learnt a huge amount, particularly how poorly equipped doctors, patients and families were to talk about death, how to die with dignity, and how lonely it becomes for the patient when it is nobody’s role to talk about dying.
This insight into how little choice and control these patients have, as well as the minefield navigated by doctors and other clinical staff, really opened my eyes.
Many people have been touched by the experiences of family and friends, helping shape any views held on this issue. None of us knows if or when we, or somebody close, will face the type of situation this bill seeks to address. It is easier not to think about the issues this bill seeks to confront. But confront them we must.
Not just because we have a moral duty, but because the law as it stands is not fit for purpose.
Currently lawyers and medical staff must navigate existing legislation which accepts the principle of compassionate assistance to die, but is unwilling to deal with the reality. Anyone wishing to deal with their inevitable death by choosing to die can, but must rely on Switzerland to manage the consequences.
People who can manage and afford to travel abroad have this choice. Others do not. It cannot be right that people who are unable to afford to travel to Switzerland to end their life are being penalised – at a time in their lives when personal wealth or poverty should be wholly irrelevant. It is also not right they travel without the safeguards this bill proposes.
It is time for parliament to step up to its responsibility as legislator and clarify the law.
Members of parliament have had the summer to focus on constituency work, but with Rob Marris’ private member’s bill being debated on a Friday sadly many MPs may choose not to attend. That is their choice.
But this bill offers unprecedented choice – and dignity – to a small group of people at a time in their lives when they most need it.
———————————
Karin Smyth MP is member of parliament for Bristol South
———————————
Photo: UK Parliament