Imagine the news delivered by the doctor. Your illness is terminal. You have just a few months left to live. Sad, scary, grim. But then the brutal blow. You will most likely die by drowning in your own faecal vomit. The end will take between 5-8 hours of body wrenching struggle. No drugs, pain relief or surgery can prevent this. Your loved ones will be racked with guilt and horror.
They will then rage forever at politicians who forced this upon them. Especially when there is an alternative which is safely used elsewhere in the world.
Adversity often defines us mentally and impacts on how we think and behave. The toughest of situations, such as warzone, can shape survivors for the rest of their lives. The same is true in the most tragic personal experiences, when we see a loved one die in excruciating agony, at the end of a debilitating illness. It sears the mind in an unforgettable way.
The assisted dying debate has many elements to it. Let’s just focus on the actual reality of what is proposed in the Terminally Ill (End of Life) Adults Bill being debated this Friday, November 29. Kim Leadbeater MP and her brilliant team have worked tirelessly to produce a well thought out plan, with probably the tough test safeguards in the world.
When you have seen someone suffer in this way, then I believe it changes ones view on this debate. Particularly when there is a kinder more compassionate option.
I have seen this — it still affects me over a decade later.
It is a form of moral and mental cowardice to say that this is not needed if we can make palliative care better — we’ve been trying that for ever, how much longer to wait before giving up? The two are not mutually exclusive and in fact go hand in hand.
The truth is that the palliative care argument is a bit selfish, most likely taken up by those who have never witnessed a dearly loved one depart in such grim agony over hours or days.
You have the luxury of making this decision without being racked in pain. Hopefully you never will be in such a position, but just think for a moment about those most dear to you. What if it should happen to them; you have to watch, helplessly as they beg you to end it all.
What right to do you have to force those unlucky enough to be faced with this end, to suffer absolute agony. Unless you are rich of course, in which case you are allowed to avoid such a painful end by going overseas. What right does one have to force the poor who cannot go overseas to suffer the worst of endings. Surely near the end, with the safeguards in place, it should be a matter of personal choice.
The inconsistent irony of the legal quagmire argument. We cannot legitimately pat ourselves on the back and take pride in the idea that we have the most respected legal system in the world, if we cannot design safeguards and review this subject after few years.
This is the argument of defeatism, of capitulation in the face of a thorny challenge.
Churchill did not stand for it in 1940, nor should we now. If others such as Oregon can successfully do it for over 25 years, surely we can?
This weeks vote is the first step in months more debate, committee analysis, review of amendments and discussion in the House of Lords. It is about saying yes, let’s have a proper go over the next few months at designing such a system fit for purpose.
