Writer’s objections to assisted dying ‘lack compassion’

It was my belief that the requete was brought as an act of compassion for those dying in unremitting distress. However, Mr W. does not, believing that it was brought for other reasons; ‘Much more likely the proposals were a smokescreen to keep something else out of view’ (but no hint of what that might be), or that it ‘did not relate exclusively to Guernsey residents’, this latter claim despite the constantly repeated assertion that the proposals related only to Guernsey residents. Mr W. simply disbelieves it. Why? – 1) because there were a relatively large number of letters on ‘assisted dying’ from outside the island; 2) because the island is to have a new crematorium and 3) because the island’s health service already allows doctors to treat patients from outside the island in Guernsey’s hospitals. Whether or not these ‘explanations’ count for anything at all, he calls for a public inquiry – but then discounts the possibility for reasons which have something to do with how he was personally treated by the States in 2005.

What are his objections to assisted dying?

1) Only two persons (estimated) per year would take up the option.

2) Guernsey residents already have the option of assisted suicide – ‘there is nothing to stop them travelling to Dignitas in Switzerland’.

3) The States were being asked to ‘undermine Common Law by allowing one group of people to kill another group of people’.

4) The States ‘were also being asked, for the sake of these two people a year, to spend millions of pounds and years and years of time in repealing and drafting legislation’ etc. etc.

5) The need ‘according to some [to] persuade the British Medical Council to change its constitution’. (I presume he is referring to the General Medical Council.)

6) In a somewhat cryptic paragraph he accuses the media of withholding ‘the most powerful arguments against [the requerants’] views from the public but submitting them to the deputies... hence the result of the vote’. I really don’t know what he is getting at here beyond the fact that he touches on it being cheaper for the States to set up a charity to ship those who want an assisted death to Switzerland, something that one of the deputies (opposed to the requete) suggested in the debate.

With respect to these objections:

1) Mr Waterman lacks compassion if he is willing to allow even two people each year to die an unpleasant death by forbidding assisted dying in familiar surroundings with family and friends. How many would need to die in abhorrent circumstances before it became sufficiently cost-effective to assuage Mr Waterman’s objection to assisted dying on economic grounds?

2) Assisted dying is not needed here as there is nothing to stop people going to Switzerland to die. Really?

Firstly, to get to Switzerland to end your life, you need to be fit enough to travel unaccompanied, otherwise your companion is breaking the law by aiding and abetting suicide, a criminal offence. That inevitably results in going to Switzerland unaccompanied while you are physically able to travel alone and that means dying well before you are ready for that final step.

Secondly, Dignitas requires medical documentation as proof of the condition and symptoms from which you are suffering. Even if your doctor supports assisted dying he/she will be very unlikely to provide such documentation (unless you lie convincingly about why you need it). To do so would be aiding and abetting your suicide. That would mean not only facing a criminal charge but it is almost certain that your doctor would be struck off the register by the General Medical Council for that offence, even if spared from criminal prosecution because it was an ‘act of compassion’.

Thirdly, if you need mobility aids or help, the ferry company or the airline may require a doctor to certify that you are fit to travel. For the reasons above, your doctor is very unlikely to furnish you with such certification because to do so would be aiding and abetting suicide.

So, ‘there is nothing to stop somebody going to Dignitas to end their intolerable life’? I think not.

3) Common Law is a man-made construct of what is or is not allowable. It is not set in stone but changes to meet the current needs of society. This is not ‘undermining Common Law’ (as Mr W. would dramatically have it) – it is evolution, bringing it up to date. (When was the last time you heard of a man being condemned to death for stealing a sheep?)

4) I have no idea if Mr W.’s figure of ‘millions of pounds’ is realistic or not, but if Mr W. thinks that easing the death of two persons a year is not a good reason to spend money he is a very sad individual indeed.

5) It is hardly onerous to persuade the General Medical Council to accommodate its guidelines (not its constitution) to accommodate a change in the law in Guernsey since it had already said it was willing to do that before the States debated the requete.

6) Mr W. might feel that dying in a foreign country in impersonal surroundings is acceptable, especially if somebody else (e.g. the States of Guernsey) were to be paying for it. However, the vast majority of people wish to die in their own home among their family and friends, leaving Mr W. in a sad minority. Besides, to do this would leave the States of Guernsey open to criminal charges of aiding and abetting suicide, unless the law was changed, meaning that the States would have to spend ‘millions of pounds and years and years of time in repealing and drafting legislation’ etc. etc.

TONY LEE,

Les Salines,

Le Vallon,

St Martin’s,

GY4 6DN.