Assisted dying: a euphemism that conceals an ugly fact

This euphemism attempts to conceal the ugly fact that ‘assisted dying’ legislation, of whatever shape, allows one private citizen – at the moment doctors are preferred – to bring about the death of another innocent (that is, not harming) person.

This is to cut away a cornerstone of Western medicine: it was the oath of Hippocrates in the 4th century BC which separated medicine from witch doctoring. The wording of this oath could not be more explicit or more relevant: ‘I will not prescribe any deadly poison to anyone, even if asked; nor will I suggest such a counsel.’

It is not only the practice of medicine that is under threat, but the whole of civilisation. Without the presumption that innocent human beings have an ineliminable right to life, the life of no one is secure. For the categories of who may be killed and who may do the killing can and do shift once the fundamental principle that a private individual may not licitly kill another is breached.

The speaker on the radio made some assertions which deserve examination. I did not hear all that she said; the first remark that I heard was that the diagnosis must be a certainty.

But this is to demand the impossible of doctors. It is not only that there is such a thing as misdiagnosis: but even when the diagnosis is correct, patients can and do surprise doctors by their responses even to the most deadly diseases. Moreover, if there were an implicit decision that such and such a condition is hopeless, and that the patient might as well be dead, then intelligent efforts to alleviate the condition and ameliorate the patient’s life would be obstructed by this implicit decision, even if it were not openly stated in any particular case.

The speaker went on to say that no medical personnel would be compelled to participate in killing people. We know that this ‘conscience protection’ is a fig leaf because of the regulations about abortion. A doctor may decline to sign forms himself: but he is compelled not to ‘deny service’ and therefore must refer the patients to a doctor who is prepared to facilitate the killing of the smaller, weaker patient. Moreover, whatever theoretical conscience rights a doctor has, in practical terms someone unwilling to take part in abortion is less likely to get a position. Were euthanasia legalised, doctors’ autonomy and freedom of conscience would continue to be compromised.

Finally, she conceded that there might be ‘religious’ concerns. With great condescension, she said that those who did not wish to be killed did not have to be. However, the withdrawal of societal support will make it difficult to resist, especially when combined with the general lack of respect for the weak and vulnerable in our society. In Oregon, health insurers are already offering suicide, not treatment, to their patients. The shift in societal expectation will create an idea that the elderly, infirm, ‘useless eaters’ have not only the prerogative of choosing death for themselves, but actually a duty to die. Those who stubbornly persist in living, especially if they need help to do so, will find themselves under increasing pressure to make way for the next generation. As early as 2008, the influential philosopher Baroness Warnock was arguing that dementia sufferers had a duty to die. [In an interview with Church of Scotland’s Life and Work magazine] the 84-year-old said she hoped people would soon be ‘licensed to put others down’ if they were unable to look after themselves.

This mindset is unavoidable once a person has decided that innocent human life is not inviolable. Civilisation depends on a respect for innocent human life; indeed one way of viewing civilisation is that it is a more or less successful attempt to stop people from killing one another on various pretexts. Any legislation allowing private citizens to kill one another is an assault on civilisation and threatens a return to even more overt barbarism than doctors engaging in intentional taking of ‘lives unworthy of life’.

J. E. M. GEACH,

3, Cordier Hill Clos,

Cordier Hill,

St Peter Port,

GY1 1JL.