Rector’s Reflections
Wednesday 20th November 2024
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Adults Bill
In yesterday’s reflections, I introduced the subject of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults bill, which is shortly to be debated by MPs. I explained that there are Christians on either side of the debate, and that the purpose of the current series of reflections is to explain why Christians have different views on the subject. Today I am going to explain why some Christians are happy with the provisions of the bill. I shall look at some of the arguments against the bill in tomorrow’s reflections.
So why would some people be in favour of the bill? There several arguments in favour of the bill, and I am going to mention three of them.
To start with, the bill recognises the moral principle that adults should be free to make their own choices, provided that they have the mental capacity to make an informed decision provision. The bill defines mental “capacity” with reference to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. What this means in practice is that adults are usually presumed to be able to make their own decisions, unless there are exceptional circumstances. We might not like the decision which another adult takes, and the decision which is taken may not be in the best interest of the person taking it or in the best interest of others. However, unless there are exceptional circumstances, it is a fundamental principle of living in a free society that every adult should have the freedom to make their own choices and decisions. All that the Assisted Dying bill does is to recognise a right which is generally recognised by society at large: adults should be given the freedom to make their own choices.
Another moral principle which is generally recognised by society is that it is right and necessary to protect the most vulnerable from the risk of abuse. The bill provides such protection. There has to be a written declaration, witnessed and counter-signed, to the effect that the adult in question has a “voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”. The bill provides that the adult can change their mind at anytime and that this revocation need not be in writing. The bill also makes it quite clear that neither mental illness nor having a disability (within the meaning of section of Equality Act 2010) in and of themselves constitute a terminal illness for the purposes the bill. I would add that it is a sad comment on modern life that these exclusions need to be explicitly stated. Finally, the bill does not permit a doctor or a medical professional to administer the medicine which will end the patient’s life: “the final act of [administering the medicine] must be taken by the person for whom the medicine has been prescribed”.
Finally, the bill provides some certainty and protection for the medical professionals involved in end of life care. It sets out a clear process. It provides a conscience clause:” A person is not under any duty (whether by contract or arising from any statutory or other legal requirement) to participate in anything authorised by this Act to which that person has a conscientious objection”. A doctor or other medical professional who follows the procedures laid down in the bill need not fear any risk of a criminal prosecution. At the same time, anyone who deliberately or negligently tries to get around its provisions faces the prospect of facing criminal charges, leading on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. In other words, this is a warning to those who would seek the benefit of the bill: follow the rules, and don’t try to get round them. They are there for a purpose. Don’t risk a 14 year prison sentence.
So these are a few of the reasons why some Christians do not oppose the provisions of the Assisted Dying bill. The bill recognises the principle that in a free society, adults should usually be allowed to make their own decisions, so long that provisions are in place to protect the most vulnerable. And the bill also considers the position of doctors and other medical professionals, setting out clear procedures to guide and reassure those providing medical care to patients with a terminal illness. It helps both patients and the medical profession.
Furthermore, the bill provides a terminally ill patient, who is “reasonably expected to die within six months”, with the option of bringing the inevitable forward, in a way which is entirely legal and above board. It is not for someone else to say that the option should not be available. It leaves the patient to make the decision themselves, and by taking the decision it may be that they will avoid unnecessary pain and suffering for themselves and their family. (Or may be not- it depends so much on the circumstances).
So there are strong arguments in favour of the bill. But there are also strong arguments against it, and we shall look at some of these in tomorrow’s reflections.