The idea that some lives aren’t worth living was once taboo; that is no longer the case, a fact that is on full display in the United Kingdom as the House of Lords continues its consideration of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill.
Members of the British Parliament and House of Lords have in recent months given voice to the notions that people ought to be able to kill themselves with the State’s help if they find poverty impinging on their quality of life; in order to save their relatives money on comfort care; and that pregnant women should be just as eligible for it as anyone else.
The latter is simply an extension of the logic of abortion, and so perhaps isn’t as shocking to a society in which one-in-three pregnancies ends in abortion (that now being the case in the UK). But it should be, because it represents the near-total erosion of the special protections western societies have afforded the most vulnerable – the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the unborn – for so long now.
The two worst offenders, who’ve consistently pushed the envelope of what can be said in public, are perhaps unsurprisingly the Bill’s sponsors, Kim Leadbeater and Labour peer, Charles Falconer (Lord Falconer), some of whose more egregious statements we’re now going to consider.
Looking at the latter first, just this month, Lord Falconer responded to Conservative peer, Lord Mackinley’s observation that some jurisdictions – such as the state of Oregon in the US – take steps to protect viable unborn babies from assisted suicide, by saying that in his opinion, “pregnancy should not be a bar” to accessing assisted suicide.
This came just days after he essentially admitted that under his bill, people would die because they are poor.
In a convoluted submission to the House of Lords, Lord Falconer said that “Where the reason…is because in your mind you are influenced by your circumstances, for example, because you are poor, should you be barred from having an assisted death…? In my view [you should] not”.
Lord Falconer has not gone rogue in expressing these aspirations – they’ve been similarly expressed by his co-sponsor, Ms Leadbeater. Earlier this year, in response to questioning from MPs Rebecca Paul and Danny Kruger, Ms Leadbeater essentially admitted that a person would be able to get an assisted death for the sole reason of saving their relatives money.
Asked repeatedly by MPs Paul and Kruger whether a person, once all of the necessary clinical administrative steps have been taken, would be able to avail of State-backed assisted suicide for the sole reason of not costing their relatives “financial expense” and not “being a burden”, Ms Leadbeater, after much beating around the bush, answered that if all of the necessary safeguards were in place, “ultimately, it does come down to a question of autonomy, and dignity, and choice for patients”.
That, for those unable to read between the lines, is an indication that, yes, for Ms Leadbeater, and presumably for Lord Falconer and other supporters of the bill, “autonomy” reigns over traditional mores, that would consider a person killing themselves out of a desire to save their loved ones money to be a very bad thing.
Along the same lines, Ms Leadbeater has implied that feeling like a burden could indeed be seen as a “legitimate reason” for seeking an assisted death – as could disability or an eating disorder, as per other comments by the Bill’s sponsors.
Another of the most egregious admissions, by Lord Falconer, was that with the “proper assistance,” people with learning difficulties or autism could have the “option” of assisted suicide. This, despite the obvious risks involved with raising such a possibility with such people.
As you might expect, these statements, and the bill itself, have met staunch opposition, to the point that it’s no clear thing that the Bill has the support it needs to progress into law. Members of the House of Lords, as well as a broad coalition of parliamentarians, charities and advocacy groups have expressed their concerns, and their dismay, at the state of the proposals, much as has been done here during the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Assisted Dying’s consideration of the matter.
Foremost among those pushing back are physicians, and groups advocating for those who’d be at risk as a result of the bill’s introduction, such as eating disorder charities.
In February this year, a coalition of such charities wrote to members of parliament to say that “the bill does not contain any provisions to prevent individuals with eating disorders from being classified as ‘terminally ill’ based on the physical consequences of their condition, should they decline or be unable to access treatment”.
“We accept that it is not the intention of the sponsor of the legislation to include eating disorders, but we are concerned that the wording of the Bill is sufficiently vague for it to be interpreted in that way,” their letter read.
Make no mistake, the UK assisted dying debate, despite the vigorous opposition, is in truly extreme territory, and it’s the most vulnerable who are once again most at risk. Unfortunately, other jurisdictions’ demonstrations of the reality of the slippery slope have done nothing to slow the progressive’s headlong rush into the moral precipice.