Why assisted dying could be legalised in the UK within the next four years
Recently, leading Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell suggested in an interview with Sky News that the mood in Parliament was changing and that assisted dying could be legalised in the UK within the next four years. Under the current law in England and Wales assisted suicide is a crime punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. There have been attempts to legalise it in the past, most famously Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill in 2014, however, they have never won enough support in Parliament.
The latest bill, introduced in 2019, is sponsored once again by Lord Falconer. It proposes a narrow reform in the law surrounding assisted dying, allowing terminally ill patients who are expected to die within the next six months to be provided with assistance to end their life, subject to the consent of two medical professionals. The bill is currently awaiting a date for a second reading in the House of Lords. Andrew Mitchell has suggested that the bill is much more likely to succeed this time because the minds of MPs on the matter have been changing. He himself is a testimony to this tide of change - in 2014 he opposed the legalisation of assisted suicide and it was not until recently in an interview with Sky News that he began to publicly support reform. He explained that this change of heart was the result of receiving passionate letters which recounted the personal stories of his own constituents.
Currently, if a terminally ill person wishes to end their life they have to travel to a clinic in a region where assisted dying is legalised, such as Dignitas in Switzerland. This is extremely expensive, making it accessible only to those who can afford it. It is also an extremely laborious and uncomfortable process for someone who is terminally ill. They will need someone to accompany them and whoever does accompany them could face prosecution when they come back to the UK, subject to the prosecution guidelines. The guidelines were only clarified in 2009 following the case of Purdy v DPP. They suggest prosecution will be less likely when the victim has made a clear, voluntary and informed decision and the encouragement or assistance is motivated wholly by compassion. Despite these guidelines making it slightly clearer when someone can expect to be prosecuted, the language is still vague and could be interpreted differently by different people.
They suggest prosecution will be less likely when the victim has made a clear, voluntary and informed decision and the encouragement or assistance is motivated wholly by compassion.
One of the landmark cases on the law of assisted dying is that of Tony Nicklinson. In 2005 he attempted to get the court to rule that it would be legal for a doctor to assist him in ending his life. Furthermore, if the court refused, Nicklinson wanted them to rule that the current law was incompatible with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The court refused to make a ruling on either of his requests, as they considered the legalisation of assisted suicide as a question for Parliament. Shortly after Nicklinson refused food and water, resulting in him dying of pneumonia. Unfortunately, Nicklinson’s story is not unique, as in the absence of reasonable alternatives many terminally ill people have resorted to inhumane methods of ending their own lives. Reform will be the difference between these people dying with, or without dignity.
The most prominent argument against legalising assisted dying is that reform will result in a ‘slippery slope’. Reform represents the degradation of the value of human life, the argument follows. It will widen dangerously over time, putting increasing numbers of vulnerable people at risk. This argument stems from the belief that if you make assisted dying an option available to a particular group of people, other people are going to ask why it is not available to them. In his interview with Sky News, Andrew Mitchell suggested that there is no need to fear a ‘slippery slope’ because the expansion of assisted suicide would require an act of Parliament, and Parliament would be unlikely to go beyond current proposals. Futhermore, it is important to acknowledge that by legalising assisted suicide, the practice can be regulated, meaning the pain and suffering of terminally ill people can be limited. Evidence from other regions that have legalised assisted dying, for example, Oregon, shows that since assisted dying has been legalised the law has neither been abused nor widened. In regions where there has been a ‘slippery slope’ in relation to the legalisation of assisted dying, for example the Netherlands, the law on assisted dying to begin with was significantly wider, making it much easier to make arguments in favour of widening it even further.
The evidence and arguments in favour of legalising assisted dying are strong. The leading campaign group in support of assisted dying, Dignity in Dying, states 84% of the public support the choice of assisted dying for terminally ill adults and that 44% of people would risk 14 years imprisonment in order to help a loved one die. It is also important to consider that the current law makes a dignified, safe and medically controlled death for those suffering from intolerable terminal illnesses a privilege, dependent on whether they can afford to travel to, and pay for treatment at Dignitas. Assisted suicide will happen anyway, legalising it is just a matter of allowing it to happen in a safe and controlled way.
Ultimately, while there are concerns of assisted dying spiraling out of control, the risk can be balanced by ensuring the law is clear, concise and narrow. On the whole it is clear that the desire within society to legalise assisted dying and provide the terminally ill with an opportunity to die peacefully outweighs the concerns.