Assisted dying debate: Protecting the vulnerable must take priority
RECENT letters to the Press have presented compelling arguments in support of the legalisation of assisted dying. On each occasion, the case was presented from the perspective of what the author (or someone close to them) would wish for themselves, what they believe should be their right, or both. Of those, only Sarah Griffith has made any attempt to suggest a possible process with appropriate safeguards.
I also recall two letters which expressed grave reservations on the subject. Neither was written from the perspective of the author’s wishes for themselves, but considered the position of others – especially the timid, the vulnerable and the impressionable.
A few months ago a letter expressed concern that people are likely to be influenced by what others decide for themselves, or by what they believe to be the expectations of their nearest and dearest.
The issue of autonomy is not simply a matter of whether or not someone has mental capacity. We are all influenced to some degree by the actions and views of others. To this extent, the comparison frequently made with ending the suffering of our pets is irrelevant; pets do not have the capacity to participate in a decision, let alone to compare their actions with those in a similar situation.
Helen Arkwright recently took the issue a stage further (Open Lines, 19 January). She pointed out that anything other than the most attentive, committed and loving care (in this she made a clear distinction from wanton abuse or manipulation) might lead the vulnerable to conclude that they were no longer relevant, contributing or wanted. The sick and elderly might feel a misguided sense of duty to follow a process to end their ‘valueless’ life in order to relieve those around them of the burden of caring.
The decision as to whether to end one’s own life has not been taken away from us, as one correspondent recently wrote. It is literally a ‘life or death’ option that it is proposed be introduced. The debate should therefore be focused on those most vulnerable to the consequences of introducing it.
Over the past three years we have lost close family members to Alzheimer’s, lung cancer, Parkinson’s and type two diabetes. At no point for any of them did the subject of assisted dying even arise, perhaps because it simply wasn’t an option. Instead, in each case the need for dedicated love and care brought out the very best in the family, the patient, carers and medics.
It is easy for strong, confident, self-determining and high-achieving individuals to imagine how and when they would wish to end their lives. But to be convincing in their arguments in favour of the legalisation of assisted dying, supporters should concentrate on how they propose to safeguard the interests of those less able to face what might for them be a huge dilemma, where previously they had none.
NIGEL DE LA RUE,
Crosstrees,
Ville Baudu, Vale.