Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

by Ann Farmer

MPs in the British Parliament have voted for Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill on its second reading by 330 votes for to 275 against.

Despite the warnings from around the world, members of both major parties voted for the Labour MP’s private member’s Bill to legalise what should more properly be called assisted suicide, but which would most likely have received much less support if it had not relied on cosy euphemisms for what is essentially the State helping dying people to kill themselves.

Indeed, the whole campaign for “assisted dying” has been so shrouded in fluffy phrases that many think it means merely helping patients to have a more comfortable and natural death. Most likely, this explains why a majority of the public has appeared to support such a measure – although, tellingly, that majority tends to shrink as the manifold problems are highlighted in detailed discussion.

But perhaps for this reason, when opponents raise the practical and ethical problems of this compassionate, autonomous process of de-lifing, in particular, the danger of slippery slopes – they are accused of “scaremongering”. However, that term might be more usefully directed at the practice of scaring vulnerable individuals into believing that they will “die in agony” if they do not have the choice that means the end of all choice.

Doublespeak

And there has been a strange, one might almost say eerie silence, in all this discussion, about ordinary suicides, which are known to rise in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal.

Indeed, despite the well-known fact that suggestion plays a significant role in suicide ideation, the constant talk about deliberate death being an answer to suffering may well move people who are not “dying anyway”, but who are suicidally inclined, to take that final, fatal step. But we are meant to believe that assisted dying is not suicide, therefore instead of engaging in suicide prevention, we must engage in suicide promotion.

As to slippery slopes, Ms Leadbeater’s Bill itself resembles a slope growing more slippery by the day. While stressing its “strict safeguards”, she herself has hinted at its broader application – even acknowledging that being a “burden” on others could be a legitimate reason for seeking assisted dying. In an interview on The News Agents podcast, she said:

“I know I wouldn’t want to be a burden to people, I can say that to you now in the clear light of day. But that’s very different to people saying, ‘I’m doing this because I feel like I’m being a burden’”.

As to “safeguards”, the ban on assisting a suicide could be seen as the “safeguard” that allowed Parliament to decriminalise suicide in 1961. It has taken a while, but finally, in 2024, we have come the long way round to dismantle that particular safeguard – arguably the most important. And among all the reasons why the Leadbeater Bill is so risky, according to former Chief Coroner Thomas Teague, is that “it removes the statutory duty to investigate suicides”.

This seems pretty alarming: coroners will be unable to investigate assisted deaths under Leadbeater’s bill (h/t @historykev) https://t.co/yHfI8AP4SW pic.twitter.com/vrG0I0RSe4

— Ian Birrell (@ianbirrell) November 25, 2024

Abandoning the Vulnerable

Unlike other jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying and now find themselves a long way down the slippery slope, our politicians have no such excuse – most seem to have decided to ignore the red flags, voting in favour of the Bill for ideological reasons instead of heeding the evil practical consequences and swerving at the last minute. This puts one in mind of lemmings, but in this case, it will most likely not be them who end up plunging over the cliff – rather, it will be the weakest and most vulnerable in society. With the legal guardrails torn down, there will be no protection – nothing to defend them from the siren voices of suicide.

As Conservative MP Danny Kruger, previously chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Dying Well, concluded in his speech during the debate on the Second Reading:

“I’m talking about the people who lack agency: the people who know what it is to be excluded from power, to have decisions made for them by bigwigs in distant offices speaking a language they don’t understand. … Not the ones who write to us campaigning for a change in the law, but the people who come to our surgeries with their lives in tatters, or who the police and social workers tell us about, the people with complex needs.

“What are the safeguards for them? I will tell you. We are the safeguard. This place. This Parliament. You and me. We are the people who protect the most vulnerable in society from harm, and yet we stand on the brink of abandoning that role.”

It is highly appropriate that this Bill should have passed its second reading on “Black Friday”. But there is still time to raise our voices in warning against this disaster waiting to happen, while we still can command our voices – enabling our long island story to have a happy ending, rather than history recording that “they all died unhappily ever after”.

___

Republished with thanks to Mercator. Image courtesy of Pexels.