A matter of life and death

To explain my reasoning we need to look at the actual requete, at least the central proposition, which reads:

‘The States agree in principle to the development of a suitable legal regime to permit assisted dying in Guernsey subject to and conditional upon:

a. the development of appropriate and effective capacity legislation and any other legislation which may be required; and

b. proposition 2.’

The States is being asked to approve the introduction of assisted dying, possibly one of the biggest social changes we can make, all on the back of only three pages of A4, with no explanation of the implications nor evidence to support the decision.

Often States members speak of evidenced-based decision making – here is a significant decision with no evidence.

The sharp-eyed reader may respond that the States is not being asked to make such a decision because the proposition is to ‘agree in principle’. I expect the signatories to the requete would argue the same.

If only it could be that simple...

The dictionary definition of ‘in principle’ means something which may not happen and it’s true the States is being asked to agree something which may not happen. Given recent moves, that could be said of every States decision.

Returning to seriousness, the proposition defines the two – and there are only two – conditions upon which the approval of assisted dying rests.

The first has two parts. Suitable capacity legislation may be important, but there is no explanation in the requete other than it ‘is recognised by’ the signatories.

The next part is that a suitable law is written. What a pointless condition. A large number of States decisions require laws to be written. I do wonder why this was included. Was it to make it seem like a higher hurdle exists which is not really there?

The second condition is to create a working party to report back with ‘recommendations for a suitable legal regime’. Note, their role is not to report back on the pros and cons of changing the law so that a decision can then be made – their role is to recommend how the law needs to change. That is because the decision to introduce assisted dying will have been taken.

When the proposition is read in full, the words ‘in principle’ do not alter the fact that the States is being asked to approve assisted dying because the two conditions, such as they are, are little different to the normal requirements when a decision requires a change in any law.

The requete asks the States to approve a significant change in the law with only scant supporting material to inform their decision.

Such a request is a real failure of good governance.

Oh no, I hear some say, not boring old governance. Surely we want government to do things, not worry about governance? Yes and no.

I accept that the government will make decisions I disagree with – even the deputies I voted for will vote in ways I may not like.

I nominated Deputy Trott and I accept there have been times, and there no doubt will be more, when I disagree with the way he votes.

That is to be expected, but I also expect that deputies follow good practice when coming to their decision, so the adherence to good governance is an essential part of good government so that we, the public, can look at a decision and, in effect, say, ‘I do not agree with it but at least they considered the issue properly’.

Asking the Assembly to approve assisted dying with no evidence does not give me any comfort that the issue is being fully considered.

When this was last looked at in 2002, the then-States approved a resolution creating a working party to consider the social, legal, medical, ethical and spiritual aspects and report back to the States.

The Working Party duly reported, with a 107-page report. I don’t like reports for the sake of reports, but when the subject matter is of such significance surely a comprehensive report is needed rather than a mere three pages?

This therefore begs the question: why have a proposition asking the States to make the decision without any evidence?

Well, call me cynical but...

The last report resulted in the law not changing. Is this why the States is being asked to make a decision without any idea of the details or safeguards?

I am not opposed to changing the law to allow assisted dying; it is 14 years since the last report and things have changed, but nothing of any substance is explained in the requete.

What we have here is not evidence-based decision making, more decision-based evidence gathering.

My hope is that a deputy places an amendment changing the propositions to set the direction of travel by creating a group to investigate, identify and evaluate the options and safeguards before a decision is made.

Surely a life-and-death issue deserves an informed decision?