What is the single most important thing of which you can think this country should stand for? Is it democracy? Is it security? Is it comfort? Is it good health and quality of life? Is it all or none of these? What do YOU think, Possums?
The other day the House of Commons devoted only five hours to the debate of a private member’s bill authored by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, entitled “Terminally ill Adults (End of Life) Bill”. This was the “Second Reading” and when free voting in the lobbies took place, the ayes had it 330 to 275: a majority of 55.
Supporters danced for joy, whooping and cheering as if they’d won the lottery, but what were they actually celebrating? The text of the Bill, as presented by Ms Leadbeater, is a 38-page document that sets out the basis upon which terminally ill people can choose to end their lives.
Read the document and judge for yourselves whether your conscience allows you to emotionally align with the text you’re reading. The full document can be found here.
Measures detailed in the Bill cover a full range of mandatory conditions and considerations. Strict nominal adherence must be applied before any potentially qualifying person can proceed to termination. What concerns me most though, and it ought to concern you too, is the latitude third parties might be able to exploit should this Bill transform into reality.
Notwithstanding extreme emotional discomfort felt on both sides of the argument, those of us who hold that sacred gift of life is a blessing balk at such a coldly dispassionate approach. Hasn’t Pandora’s box been opened? has this not in fact exposed a king-sized can of worms?
Now, most people will have an opinion. For some it will be fleeting, whilst for others it will be lingering, many might not give the matter much thought one way or the other at the moment. Regardless of where your thoughts on the subject lie it cannot be disputed that the prospect of this Bill becoming law will have far-reaching, potentially earth-shattering, consequences.
For anyone who has witnessed the pain of a loved one or dear friend suffering from the ravages of terminal illness there is an instinctive impulse to aid and comfort. However you want to sum up your emotional state of mind in circumstances like this you feel “there but for the grace of God go I”.
True, not everyone sees things like this through a prism of faith, but your sense of humanity comes to the fore regardless of how you might wish to express it, or it damn well should!
The biggest single issue I have with this shocker is the clear potential for abuse. The provision of medical services in this country already has numerous pitfalls that expose practitioners to potential civil AND criminal litigation.
The simple fact is that those in whom we place our faith and trust to care for us are human and occasionally mistakes are made, both inadvertently and deliberately. Then the legal process is usually engaged in various ways to determine the facts, provide some closure in the event of consequential fatalities, and doubtless to assuage the conscience of some individuals involved to an extent.
The Bill’s list of contents ought to be raising alarm bells on their own by virtue of the subject matter to which they specifically relate. Indeed, if you then actually read the details the cause for alarm becomes readily apparent.
There is a constant overriding theme throughout the text of the Bill as it presently stands of caveats mitigating possible exceptions that effectively open the possibility of the Secretary of State’s intervention, for example. This is “State Sponsored involvement”, Possums.
There is also specific reference and a section that addresses “Court Approval”, section 12 of the Bill refers. Yet another provision of the Bill is set out making allowance for “proxy” involvement in the process, section 15 of the Bill refers.
The Bill taken as a whole in its present form is quite frankly appalling, even more so as referenced above in sections 12 and 15. Anytime courts are given jurisdictional latitude, or third parties potentially have status or authority there is a clear risk to the terminally ill patient concerned.
How do you address a terminally ill person’s needs or wishes when they might be suffering another no less traumatising terminal medical condition like dementia? How, for example, do you protect that person from interference in their lives from the secretive court of protection who might place life defining decisions in the hands of a proxy or third party?
For the record, let’s just say I have personal experience of this. It’s real, and it’s emotionally devastating for the person concerned; I know, I’ve seen that one first hand!
Strengthening or maintaining palliative care standards together with more readily available access to hospice facilities is where focus ought to firstly be applied. Legislating a process in which we should never interfere is an abomination and in which we have no right to participate, certainly not based on Kim Leadbeater’s PMB.
Opposition to any effort to end terminally ill suffering does not in any way label or even suggest that people advocating an end-of-life remedy are any less caring or impassioned.
We wholeheartedly agree in that to alleviate suffering is a non-negotiable given. But the point over which we don’t agree, is deciding, or being a party to, whether someone lives or dies. God, please give us wisdom as well as compassion and understanding.