Can euthanasia really be seen as a ‘fuss’?
GIVEN the active pursuit by the Isle of Man and Jersey of the development of a system to facilitate euthanasia in those islands, I was not surprised to read the Guernsey Press front page headline on Saturday 2 March declaring, ‘Assisted dying to come back to the States again’. The article went on to explain that Deputy St Pier proposes to take this issue back to the States Assembly via a requete before next year’s general election. My only surprise was that he had not sought to raise this matter sooner, such is his enthusiasm for it.
In the Press report Deputy St Pier describes euthanasia as an inevitable social change and goes on to say that ‘...after it has been adopted, everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.’ At best, these are loose words; but at their worst, these words shamefully reduce a matter literally of life and death to ‘a fuss’.
In writing this letter I have consciously chosen to use the term euthanasia rather than other more benign terms such as assisted dying or dignity in dying. In its literal sense euthanasia means an easy or gentle death; arguably something best supported by first-class palliative care. In its most basic sense, however, euthanasia is a conscious act or omission that has the intention of ending life – which I believe would be considered currently as an act of homicide.
Deputy St Pier referred to the States previous rejection in 2018 of proposals, contained in a requete that he led, to develop a system to locally facilitate euthanasia, terming it a ‘lost opportunity’. Reporting in Monday’s Press also referred to an earlier States rejection in 2004.
To add, I hope, a little more clarity, I should explain that the Assembly’s consideration of this matter in 2004 also followed a requete consequent to which, at the September 2002 States meeting, it was resolved:
‘To instruct the (then) States Advisory and Finance Committee to carry out appropriate investigations and consultations with whomever it deems fit; and thereafter, but at the earliest opportunity, to bring a report to the States of Deliberation, on the implications of allowing doctor-assisted death or some other similar death with dignity legislation to be implemented within Guernsey, and containing that committee’s recommendation in connection with that matter’.
A&F subsequently formed the Death With Dignity Working Party, appointing a member of the Guernsey Bar as chairman with the former Deputy Martin Ozanne as political lead for A&F. Membership included political and senior staff representatives of the then Board of Health and Committee for Home Affairs, professional medical bodies, the Council of Churches and HM Comptroller who provided legal advice, as necessary. For full disclosure, I should state that I was the senior staff member tasked with supporting the chairman and Deputy Ozanne.
After an intensive 12-month period of local and off-island consultation, research and evidence gathering, the States debated the working party’s report in October 2004 and decided that there was not a case for creating a local scheme to support euthanasia.
In contrast the May 2018 requete took a rather more bullish approach. States members were asked to ‘...agree in principle to the development of a suitable legal regime to permit assisted dying in Guernsey subject to and conditional upon the development of appropriate and effective capacity legislation...’ Subject to that proposition being agreed, the requete further proposed forming a working party to be tasked with reporting back to the States of Deliberation within 18 months with recommendations for a suitable legal regime.
In summary the 2002/4 approach can be regarded as one that required extensive consultation alongside objective evidence-based research that enabled States members to decide whether they wished to pursue the development of appropriate legislation and supporting systems.
In marked contrast, the 2018 requete, if successful, would have had the effect of the States giving up front approval for the development of a legal regime, (although I note the requete’s use of the words ‘in principle’) with research being carried out only after such approval had been provided. Had the States given approval in May 2018, the genie would pretty much have escaped from the bottle.
Deputy St Pier was quoted on 2 March as stating he had not decided the exact form of the propositions that the requete will contain. So the question is, will he opt for the mature, research and evidence based 2002/4 approach or will there be a repeat of the rather gung ho 2018 ‘just trust me and my supporters’ attempt? Only time will tell.
But whatever route Deputy St Pier follows, I would respectfully request that he desists from reducing the ending of life to the status of ‘a fuss’ – it rather demonstrates a lack of respect.
WAYNE HASSALL