Don't Vote Labour Again (Part 14)
Assisted suicide
In the original incarnation of this series 'Don't Vote Labour', I warned of the signs that Labour - were it to win - would put forward legislation allowing assisted suicide. Starmer had long supported it. The biography by Tom Baldwin states the issue has been an interest to him since his DPP days, when he decided not to prosecute a couple who had taken their disabled son to be euthanised in Switzerland. He had pledged a Parliamentary vote on the issue, and told us he was in favour of changing the law. He said this in a public phone-call to Dame Esther Rantzen.
The obviously staged call was recorded by ITV News on March 12th 2024. Starmer said: “I’m personally in favour of changing the law…. I think we need to make time. We will make the commitment. Esther, I can give you that commitment right now”.
Later he would make a point of refusing to say how he would vote - which was useless as he’d already done it. Starmer had made much of the Rantzen promise, citing it numerous times. Rantzen (84) has stage four cancer and has joined Dignatas in order to commit assisted suicide in Switzerland. She has made documentaries and campaigned on the issue. She does have a stake in the matter, then; but it's still odd to base government policy on a pledge to a celebrity TV presenter. It looks suspiciously populist, or at least what Starmer mistakenly thinks will be popular.
In the six weeks leading up to the General Election, Labour were quiet about the issue, and funnily enough it didn’t feature in their manifesto.
We did not have to wait long for such a vote. The proposed legislation came within four months of Labour coming to power. It will not go to a referendum, which would have been a true democratic test. Instead, as happened when Ted Heath took us into the EEC in 1973, the issue will be decided by Parliament alone.
A Bill was drafted and submitted by Kim Leadbeater, the sister of the assassinated MP Jo Cox. Leadbeater was selected by Labour in dubious circumstances, likely because of who she was. With amazing swiftness for such a complex issue, the Bill has been approved at the second reading stage by a majority of 55. It will now go to committee stage, then be put to final vote in both chambers. Assuming it passes, it will become an Act and receive Royal Assent. For the first time since capital punishment was abolished, the state will be able to facilitate death (outside of military action and allowing armed police to use lethal force).
My personal view was - and still is - that I could support such a policy if there were strict safeguards and it was only allowed for the terminally ill, or people whose day-to-day lives could not be experienced without terrible physical pain. Everything else, including disability and mental illness, had to be treated through the existing methods, with a view to preserving life. I could however understand peoples' opposition and their concerns about it. I highlighted it as an issue knowing how many social conservatives are opposed to the idea, and seeing how it might be implemented badly.
Assisted dying - or to use the non-politically correct terms, assisted suicide or euthanasia - has always been a controversial topic. In recent years it has gained more prominence owing to it being legalised in Justin Trudeau's Canada in 2021. Disturbing stories abound of perfectly healthy old people, depressed teenagers or soldiers with PTSD booking a state-assisted suicide. There are concerns about coercion from third parties, the state's duty of medical care being compromised, and whether the safeguards preventing abuse are sufficient. It's even feared there is a eugenics component to the concept, and it is a way of disposing of 'burdens' on the state as occurred under the Nazis and elsewhere.
UK citizens (as Starmer well knows) have been travelling to Canada, Switzerland or the Netherlands for the 'treatment'. A Dutch girl was euthanised in Holland because she had mental health issues, rather than anything physical. Clearly such a thing is deeply immoral and must not be allowed.
Leadbeater's Bill does not, in fairness, emulate the model in those countries. The clue is in the official name - the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It only applies to people over 18 who are terminally ill, and judged to only have six months left. The text states the process would not apply to mental illness or disability. The procedure would need to be signed off by the patient themselves, an independent witness, two medical practitioners (one working on the patient's case, the other unconnected) and a junior district judge. It needs to be demonstrated the patient is of sound mind. The patient would be required to 'press the button' or take the pills themselves, having been prepped by the doctor. There are custodial sentences ranging from 14 years to life if the process is abused.
So far so good. But how safe are these safeguards, really? And will the criteria for eligibility become more liberal further down the line?
What the Bill can't legislate against is coercion by others. Yes the patient has to declare the procedure is their own choice, and it needs the approval of four other people, unrelated to the patient and without a conflict of interest. Assuming you can ensure the independence or the infallibility of these people, which is a big enough ask on its own, it is obvious that the relatives or friends could have influenced the patient beforehand. They could have been working on them for months, with a view to removing them as a burden or getting their hands on an inheritance; or simply because *they* believe the patient should be put out of their suffering. The patient, who will likely be in a vulnerable state, might just acquiesce to placate their loved ones. There is no getting around this possibility. Nor would there be any way of proving what had happened.
People in favour of assisted suicide will argue the risk is worth it for the greater good - allowing the terminally ill to end their own suffering. Many thousands, they say, will do this legitimately with only a few aberrations. Those in the anti camp will say that because the risk cannot be removed, it means we should not have the policy at all. You can decide which is the more persuasive. With the slippery slope argument, those in favour will insist nothing else will be up for grabs, whereas those against will express scepticism about this. It is all dependent on gut feeling and we can never know until it happens.
The same goes for the concerns about eugenics, or at least about the state indirectly using the process to thin out the recipients of expensive medical treatment and social care. There will be absolute certainty from both camps whether these sinister agendas exist or not. But unless we know the inner mental workings of those putting forward the policy - including the government and Civil Service that has let the debate happen - we cannot comprehend what is really going on. Again, we may only find out when it's too late.
Whatever the morality of the Bill, there will almost certainly be legal difficulties. Just one challenge of a procedure, or one proven case of abuse, could unravel the whole thing before our eyes. Public trust in the procedure could be undermined as Parliament flounders around trying to fire-fight. It is hard to shake this notion. Those MPs in favour have been so emotive and (subtly) smug, getting their moment in the limelight - but have they really considered the subject? Have they even had enough time to do so? It has officially been a free vote, but we don't know what sort of pressure or groupthink has occurred behind the scenes. A socially progressive party with a recently-won majority of 156 seats is very likely to get swept up in a tribal madness. 58% of Labour MPs voted for the Bill (19% of Tories and 85% of Lib Dems). We may see the ill fruits of this in the future.
Back to my opinion, I am not confident the many issues with this proposal have been properly considered. I can only hope in the committee stage the myriad of potential pitfalls are rigorously discussed and improvements are suggested. Contemplating a moral dilemma in theory is very different from implementing something in practice. if I were an MP (I tried) I would have been extremely cautious, and quite possibly voted against the proposal as it now stands. Something does not sit well. Another question I'm inclined to ask is why now? Was there really a vocal public demand for it, outside of a few activists and think-tanks? How many people with terminal illnesses would want to use such a process anyway? Was it really a priority, among all the pressing issues our country now faces?
The NHS is currently completely dysfunctional and under great strain. I am also not sure now is the time to be giving it such a huge new responsibility. Perhaps we should repair the system and all of the factors affecting it before making such a move.
We must hope there is no truth to the theory the government is looking for a way to save cash (while spending it like mad elsewhere) by allowing the gravely sick to thin themselves out. Likewise we must hope private healthcare does not try and make it a money spinner. We must pray the slippery slope to Canada does not beckon. Because, if any of these fears are true, we have entered a very dark place indeed.