Assisted dying: ‘Risks worth accepting’ or a law which could be abused?
Assisted dying ‘risks are worth accepting’
I remember when I began to think more seriously about assisted dying – probably about 40 years ago when I was in my 30s (a local couple had gone to great lengths in their 70s to avoid an unwelcome deterioration into old age with a suicide pact on the Sleeper to London).
I soon found that my wife Angela was like minded. We feel we should have the choice (should we need it) to leave when we are ready.
In recent months and weeks (with potential legislation in Scotland and London) we are at last discussing this more openly and I can no longer stand on the sidelines!
I totally understand those who, for religious or moral reasons, are against the principle at its most basic level – but some of the other arguments raised? Not really.
There ARE risks of course – that relatives might influence someone, that mistakes can be made, that people may make the choice in haste, that they might feel coerced and so on.
It’s the job of legislation and regulation to minimise and mitigate risk – not remove it completely when the majority wish to be able to exercise what they think should be their right to choose.
We accept risk every second of every day.
Our daily adventure onto the road network is the obvious example – it’s vital to our way of life so we manage and mitigate the risk as far as we reasonably can.
Then there are those we should instead focus on “end of life care” – no argument with that, but I would argue that assisted dying is PART of that end of life process.
For many of us it’s an insurance policy – to know that should we feel that our life has no further meaning we don’t have to struggle on against pain and depression - we can go calmly and peacefully - leaving a positive memory for others.
Is it a slippery slope? Yes, it could be seen as such, but you could just as well call it the first step in a natural progression to greater choice and a more sophisticated approach to human life.
Thomas Prag
Inverness
Why I will vote against assisted dying - Highland MP
‘Give a referendum on assisted dying’
Subscribe to receive our free email newsletters
‘Hard cases never make good law’
Colin Campbell declares that assisted dying can offer the best possible way to depart. I was heartened to hear that his father’s final hours were not prolonged in suffering. I can also testify that as a former nurse practicing several decades ago, I remember when those who were in severe pain and, it seemed, nearing the end of their lives. They were gradually given more and more pain relief and like Mr Campbell’s father “drifted quietly off to sleep”.
He asks the question was this even legal? As was explained to the relatives, it may be that the amount of pain relief given necessary to relieve pain would mean that the already weakened body would not survive the dose. Had Harold Shipman not carried out his killing spree, probably this way of dealing compassionately with end-of-life suffering would have continued.
The intention in cases like Mr Campbell’s father is primarily to relieve pain and suffering and not to kill the patient. But the assisted dying bill, were it to become law, would be to kill the patient at that time and is fraught with possible unintended consequences. With the former, the intention is not to kill, with assisted dying it is.
The danger is that the definition of terminal illness that “cannot be reversed by treatment” could include non-terminal conditions such as diabetes and anorexia. Patients could potentially refuse treatment, therefore meaning they might make themselves eligible for assisted suicide.
The right to conscientious objection is not total under the bill. While a medical professional has no duty to participate directly in assisted dying, they would be obliged to refer patients to willing practitioners.
The bill is also silent on the right of institutions – for example, hospices – to object to assisted suicide provision and/or referrals.
We might say that this country would never be like Canada and offer assisted dying to those who want to end their lives whether terminal or not. We would never hear of people taking 130 hours to die. We would never make people feel a burden or suggest they would be better off dead.
An obligatory review of the Act within five years of its passing also leaves the door open to the widening of the above criteria. Mental suffering can be much worse than end of life suffering and who is to say those suffering chronic depression would not be offered assisted suicide, for that is what it is.
Oncologists will say that they have frequently been proved wrong in predicting how long someone may live with cancer. One lady I know told me that her husband was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and given a prognosis of three months to live and died 15 years later from some other condition.
Hard cases never make good law, and we should attempt to increase much greater funding for hospices than resorting to passing a law which could be abused.
Irene Munro
Letters should be submitted to newsdesk@hnmedia.co.uk. Please include your address and a daytime contact number. You can also tweet us: @InvCourier or leave a comment on Facebook @invernesscourier
