Speaking at a Labour fringe meeting hosted by Demos and campaign organisation
Dignity in Dying, the Labour peer argued that some people with terminal illnesses wanted the choice of ending their lives at a particular time rather than face a few more days or weeks of prolonged suffering.
The current law meant this was not only impossible, but that anyone helping them take this choice was breaking the law as well.
“That law, I think, is wrong, cruel and based on a different time and different place” he said, adding that having the Director of Public Prosecutions make judgements on the subject would only have been suitable during the 1600s.
The law has led to “absurd” and “ridiculous” results of hundreds travelling to Dignitas in Switzerland, he said, whilst legislation changes in Oregon had proved that changes could be made safely, without the vulnerable being “over-persuaded by grasping relatives”.
He said an article written on the subject by Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson recently was “misleading, shrill” and misrepresented the situation.
The Labour peer’s
Assisted Dying Billis currently awaiting its second reading in the House of Lords.
The mood in the Lords is changing on the subject, he believed, due to the House’s sensitivity to public opinion, and the real test to the Bill would come when it reached the Commons.
Labour’s Sarah Champion MP, explained that her work in the arts and in a children’s hospice had led her to appreciate the importance of empowering people.
The Rotherham MP described how she had learned the value of allowing people to live their lives to the full, though she had noticed how invasive medical practices challenged the quality of life of patients.
Elderly people are “terrified” that their final wishes will not be followed, she said, with their ‘do not resuscitate’ instructions often only being applicable in certain locations.
She explained how controversial issues such as end of life care were never vote winners, leading most MPs to steer well clear of them. Coupled with a more general inclination not to ‘rock the boat’, the delicate subject of assisted dying was often never addressed by MPs – though she pointed to the successful passage of the same-sex marriage Bill as being an important step against this mentality.
On the question of how open Parliament really was to changing legislation in the area, Champion suggested it was “actually pretty close,” adding that the more MPs hear about an issue the more attention they pay to it.
Sir Graeme Catto, Chairman of Dignity in Dying, explained that around 40% of the medical profession say they would think seriously about assisted dying if a legislative change was made.
The Royal College of Nursing, which used to be opposed to the question of assisted dying, is now officially neutral on the issue, a move that Sir Graeme is keen to see other bodies echo.
Catto believed the law had not yet been changed because of some common fallacies, including that vulnerable people would not be protected and that one change in the law would represent a slippery slope.
In actual fact, he explained, it tended to be the more feisty or determined people that wanted to take control of their own deaths, and where the law had been changed – such as in Oregon – there had been no further ‘slip’ in legislation.
Rabbi Jonathan Romain, Co-ordinator of Interfaith Leader for Dignity in Dying, explained that the idea that all religious people are against assisted dying is a myth.
“There is nothing holy about agony” he explained. “We believe in the sanctity of life, not the sanctity of suffering.”
End of life care is an example of the best practices of care for the sick, he argued, adding that merely knowing that the option of assisted death exists would be an enormous relief for many people who might never go on to use that option.
Questions and answers
Lord Falconer’s Bill was discussed in more detail, as the peer explained that it only dealt with people suffering from a terminal illness, and included a six month criteria for this.
The six month timeframe written into the Bill was questioned by the chair Nick Cohen, but the panel all agreed the rigid lines in the Bill are needed.
“Ultimately, I think the law should not allow people to be killed” Lord Falconer said, because this would have the potential to introduce a slippery slope.
A member of the General Synod in the audience worried that the Bill was so narrow that it would not actually help those suffering the most; those in great pain with poor quality of life, but whose conditions are not terminal.
Rabbi Romain pointed to the difference between compassion and legislation, saying the
Assisted Dying Billwould enable action, rather than merely empathy.
Senior Parliamentary Officer at Mencap, Rob Holland, asked how to safeguard an individual’s choice, particularly in a system that often struggled to focus on the individual.
More than anything, doctors desire clarity on the issue, Lord Falconer answered, saying he did not agree that an entire culture shift in the NHS would be needed.
Asked about the political chances of the Bill, Lord Falconer explained that all political parties were either neutral or slightly against assisted dying as a policy.
“There is very wide support for it, but there is intense opposition to it in narrow groups.”
Rabbi Romain warned that the Catholic Church, keen to find a cause to rally behind and boost its reputation after various scandals, may well represent a formidable political force against any change in legislation.