The assisted dying bill isn't safe for disabled people – that's why I will fight it in the Lords
(Sergio Azenha / Alamy Stock Photo)
4 min read
We have been told it is the safest bill in the world. Does that make the bill safe?
Being a Paralympian has afforded me a level of privilege that many disabled people never get to experience. Being a parliamentarian gives me a different perspective. But as a disabled person I have a small glimpse of how many feel. In Central Lobby a few years ago, I was told by a stranger: “If my life was like yours, I would want to kill myself.” They said it so happily, I think they meant it as a compliment.
Ableism is alive and often thriving. And it’s why no organisation of or for disabled people supports the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
I have not been manipulated or captured, and I am an atheist. I have received many passionate emails and been told that I cannot have watched someone I love die. I have. And I think about the bigger picture; of those who fear a painful death and those who fear being forced to end their lives early, deprived of choice.
Parliament must care for both, but it has become binary. Rather than insist the government take the time to get it right, we’ve been plunged into camps, with our challenges described as “noise” or “different views”.
The Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists, a former chief coroner, Liberty, and a former president of the family division of the High Court have all raised objections. The safeguards are often rattled through: two doctors; ‘settled wish’; terminal illness. It sounds good, but legislation is not soundbites. The details matter and I have concerns.
This bill will require, as a matter of law, that we not care why someone wishes to end their life, even if it is because they’ve not been given any other options. That’s why the fear from so many is real.
We are at the sharp end of changing the doctor-patient relationship
I have been told not to worry – it is not for disabled people. But it’s easy for a pre-existing disability, particularly with lack of care, to worsen and become terminal. In New Zealand, where they do gather some data, one in 10 applicants for assisted dying are disabled, but we know nothing else about why they applied or what choices they were given.
We know palliative care is in a sorry state, but we are asked to provide a legal right only to assisted dying. Is it then a choice or a substitute? We have been told it is the safest bill in the world. Does that make the bill safe? How much risk is OK to take with people’s lives?
There remains an anorexia loophole: MPs only tackled a different problem of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, despite repeated warnings from Chelsea Roff, an expert in this field.
The panel need only to be 51 per cent sure that coercion is not taking place. For anyone who has been in a coercive relationship, think about what that might feel like.
A doctor could raise it with a patient regardless of their vulnerability. There are currently no protections for hospices or care homes who do not wish to take part.
We are beyond talking about principles. We are at the sharp end of changing the doctor-patient relationship.
Seeing the impassioned protests when the bill passed the Commons at Third Reading was very emotional on all sides. People care deeply. But I couldn’t fail but notice how hard it was for disabled people to have their voices heard. We live in a world where one wheelchair user is allowed per bus and a couple on a train. Just getting to Parliament is hard. We don’t live in an equal society, but this is how much it meant to them.
For these reasons and more, I will join with colleagues to fight this bill when it arrives in the Upper Chamber.
Baroness Grey-Thompson is a Crossbench peer
