Dame Esther Rantzen recently revealed that she is fighting stage four lung cancer. We all hope that what she calls her “miracle” treatment works, but if it doesn’t she told Radio 4 that she "might buzz off to Zurich", where assisted dying is legal. Her revelations made headlines, and her support for a change in the law on choice energised the debate amongst politicians.
For some time, assisted dying has commanded widespread support. The majority of the public now believe that terminally ill people should have the right to choose to end their life, empowering them to control how and when they die – and to do so with dignity. This recent poll of Mumsnet users – showing that 87% were in favour of choice at the end of life – is further evidence for a consensus of support.
But a change in the law seems far off. Public support for assisted dying has not translated into action. When plans to legalise choice at the end of life were brought before Parliament in 2015, two thirds of the House of Commons voted against.
Affording someone the power to end their life is of course a significant issue, and a serious step for legislators to take. Some MPs are wary of whether the necessary safeguards could be put in place. Others hold strong views in opposition based on their faith.
But what they forget is that doing nothing is a political and moral choice too, with serious consequences for thousands.
The blanket ban on assisted dying means terminally ill people who want to take control over the end of their life are put in an impossible position.
For those who can afford it, there is the option to travel abroad. The UK has outsourced its compassion to Switzerland, where dozens of Britons travel to Dignitas each year, paying £15,000 to seek help with a dignified death. British membership of Dignitas is at an all-time high, but under current law those accompanying people to end their life can face prosecution when they return to the UK.
Those who are unable to travel to Switzerland face continued suffering. While excellent palliative care is important, it alone cannot be the answer. Even with universal access to the best end-of-life care services in this country, the Office of Health Economics estimates around 6,400 people a year – an average of 17 a day – would still suffer with completely unrelieved agony at the end of their life.
This leaves a tragic situation in the UK. Current ONS research indicates that people with serious and potentially terminal health conditions may be more than twice as likely to take their own lives, often in harmful and distressing ways, only then to be found by their deeply traumatised families. According to latest estimates, up to 650 terminally ill people end their lives every year, which includes people receiving specialist palliative care in hospital.
In countries across the world, assisted dying has been proven to work in a safe and secure way. For more than 400 million people across 30 jurisdictions in Europe, North and South America and Australasia, assisted dying has been legalised or decriminalised. Closer to home, Scotland, Jersey, and the Isle of Man are on the cusp of legislating to allow terminally ill people to control the end of their life.
We need to call upon MPs to reopen the conversation on a change in the law, urging them to reconsider the case for assisted dying. In an election year, there is a huge opportunity to thrust this issue back onto the political agenda. Speak to your local candidates about choice at the end of life; it’s an opportunity - as their potential constituents – to convince them of the undeniable public support for a change in the law. For those with personal experiences, it’s a chance to demonstrate the damaging impact that the current law has on British families.
It is also paramount that parliamentary time is given to this debate. We need Parliament to meaningfully engage with this subject, to allow for proposals to be comprehensively scrutinised and for safeguarding concerns to be addressed.
Dame Esther’s support for a change in the law has sparked a petition calling on Parliament to bring this subject before the House, holding a free vote on whether to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. Supported by the organisation Dignity in Dying, she’s already reached more than 100,000 signatories, and we urge you to sign it at the link below.
Alongside a majority of the public, we are convinced that a change in the law is better and safer than the situation we have now. We would want it for ourselves as well as everyone else. It is time for members of Parliament to listen to their constituents and reopen this conversation. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of our duty as elected representatives.
Sign Dame Esther and Dignity in Dying’s official government petition calling for parliamentary time and a free vote on assisted dying here.
Guest posts
Guest Post
Guest post: ‘The blanket ban on assisted dying means terminally ill people who want to take control over the end of their life are put in an impossible position.’
NicolaDMumsnet · 19/02/2024 16:41
Karin Smyth and Kit Malthouse
Karin Smyth is a Labour MP for Bristol South. Rt Hon Kit Malthouse is a Conservative MP for North West Hampshire. They are Co-Chairs of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Choice at the End of Life.
frozenwarning · 21/02/2024 11:05
As a healthcare professional who has worked for many years with people at the end of life and had close relatives who died good deaths with good palliative care and those who died what I consider bad deaths. I've changed my mind on assisted dying. I was opposed on the grounds that I didn't do my job in order to kill people and felt it was unfair to ask professionals to do it. I then changed and thought with strict criteria maybe it could work, because believe me, the thought of developing MND or IPF terrifies me. However, having seen the appalling things that have happened with MAiD in Canada where people are requesting assisted death for things such as poverty and mental illness, where people cannot get the health and/or social care they need and instead are asked if they would like to explore euthanasia, and the expansion in the Netherlands of euthanasia for children from the age of one, I am now opposed again. I also listened carefully to disabled campaigners, and people such as Tanni Grey Thompson, who oppose on the grounds that the most vulnerable members of society are likely to feel obliged or in some cases pressured into choosing death so as not to be a burden. How do you propose to solve these problems, and avoid the "slippery slope" argument so often derided by euthanasia activists, but proven in Canada to have already sliding downhill rather fast?
Soontobe60 · 22/02/2024 10:02
So surely the solution is to ensure nobody feels like they ‘have’ to go down this route, and that there is enough support in place for those who are suffering mentally / financially etc to not want to end their lives.
Ultimately, it’s taking the role of the Nanny State to its end point. Everyone deserves bodily autonomy, to choose the way they want to end their lives, whether it be to utilise as much medical intervention as possible even in the face of extreme odds of success, or to be helped to slip away when they feel it’s time. We treat sick animals with more compassion than we do sick humans.
frozenwarning · 21/02/2024 11:05
As a healthcare professional who has worked for many years with people at the end of life and had close relatives who died good deaths with good palliative care and those who died what I consider bad deaths. I've changed my mind on assisted dying. I was opposed on the grounds that I didn't do my job in order to kill people and felt it was unfair to ask professionals to do it. I then changed and thought with strict criteria maybe it could work, because believe me, the thought of developing MND or IPF terrifies me. However, having seen the appalling things that have happened with MAiD in Canada where people are requesting assisted death for things such as poverty and mental illness, where people cannot get the health and/or social care they need and instead are asked if they would like to explore euthanasia, and the expansion in the Netherlands of euthanasia for children from the age of one, I am now opposed again. I also listened carefully to disabled campaigners, and people such as Tanni Grey Thompson, who oppose on the grounds that the most vulnerable members of society are likely to feel obliged or in some cases pressured into choosing death so as not to be a burden. How do you propose to solve these problems, and avoid the "slippery slope" argument so often derided by euthanasia activists, but proven in Canada to have already sliding downhill rather fast?
Soontobe60 · 22/02/2024 10:02
So surely the solution is to ensure nobody feels like they ‘have’ to go down this route, and that there is enough support in place for those who are suffering mentally / financially etc to not want to end their lives.
Ultimately, it’s taking the role of the Nanny State to its end point. Everyone deserves bodily autonomy, to choose the way they want to end their lives, whether it be to utilise as much medical intervention as possible even in the face of extreme odds of success, or to be helped to slip away when they feel it’s time. We treat sick animals with more compassion than we do sick humans.
frozenwarning · 21/02/2024 11:05
As a healthcare professional who has worked for many years with people at the end of life and had close relatives who died good deaths with good palliative care and those who died what I consider bad deaths. I've changed my mind on assisted dying. I was opposed on the grounds that I didn't do my job in order to kill people and felt it was unfair to ask professionals to do it. I then changed and thought with strict criteria maybe it could work, because believe me, the thought of developing MND or IPF terrifies me. However, having seen the appalling things that have happened with MAiD in Canada where people are requesting assisted death for things such as poverty and mental illness, where people cannot get the health and/or social care they need and instead are asked if they would like to explore euthanasia, and the expansion in the Netherlands of euthanasia for children from the age of one, I am now opposed again. I also listened carefully to disabled campaigners, and people such as Tanni Grey Thompson, who oppose on the grounds that the most vulnerable members of society are likely to feel obliged or in some cases pressured into choosing death so as not to be a burden. How do you propose to solve these problems, and avoid the "slippery slope" argument so often derided by euthanasia activists, but proven in Canada to have already sliding downhill rather fast?
Chamomileteaplease · 22/02/2024 10:41
How would the system be abused though? Surely, if you don't want to be euthanised you say no?
Why isn't it that simple?
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.