Anna Soubry is right: we must stop fudging issue of assisted dying

Compassion should win the argument

The new health Minister Anna Soubry has articulated the view of many people, a clear majority according to opinion polls, who feel that the current law on assisted dying is out of date. 

As is well documented, over the last decade Britons have been travelling abroad to die. But, this is just one part of the problem. Dying Britons have also been ending their lives at home, sometimes with the assistance of loved ones, and evidence suggests that some doctors are illegally helping their patients to die. None of this occurs within a legal framework, agreed by Parliament, which allows healthcare professionals to openly discuss and support, if upfront safeguards are met, a dying patient’s request to die. 

Instead, we muddle along with a fudge. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), understandably reluctant to prosecute those who have helped a loved one to die, has set out factors for and against prosecution that effectively decriminalises compassionate amateur assistance. However, the assistance of a doctor or a nurse in a professional capacity is a specific factor in favour of prosecution. In fairness to the DPP his hands are largely tied by statute. Only Parliament can create a safeguarded process of assisted dying. Their failure to do so to date means that we have effectively outsourced assisted dying to family members and the Swiss. No wonder Anna Soubry described the law as “ridiculous and appalling”.  

Of course, there are valid concerns about changing the law. Some fear that it would put people under pressure, real or imagined, to die. But, the evidence from those countries that have legalised and regulated some form of assistance to die shows this fear to be misguided. In the US state of Oregon, where assisted dying was legalised in 1997, assisted dying works safely and effectively. Eligibility has never been extended beyond terminal illness, and numbers are low – assisted deaths have never amounted to more than 0.25 per cent of all deaths per year – and there is no evidence that potentially vulnerable groups (such as people with disabilities, or people who are over 85) are negatively affected.

In reality it is the current fudge that does not sufficiently protect people. Surely people would be better protected if the law thoroughly examined a person’s request to die when they are still alive. Our society is built on the premise of trusting competent adults to make decisions for themselves – such as the right to refuse treatment. To safeguard against undue influence we advocate informed decision making via access to relevant information. When it comes to assisted dying this is not achieved by turning a blind eye, but rather by allowing dying patients who wish to control the time and manner of their death the option of discussing their wish and their alternative choices with healthcare professionals. A process that would also allow healthcare professionals to assess diagnosis, prognosis, competence and whether there has been any undue influence.

Dignity in Dying in partnership with the All-Party Parliamentary Party on Choice at the End of Life is currently consulting on a draft assisted dying bill. The consultation closes on 20 November, and its aim is to create the most robust assisted dying bill possible that both enables choice at the end of life and offers better protection. We would ask anyone interested in this important issue to make their views known, whether supportive or opposed. A final report will be published next year at which point the former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer has committed to bringing a private members bill in the House of Lords.

Three countries in Europe and two States in the US already allow some form of assistance to die, and they look set to be followed shortly by France and Canada. It’s time Britain followed suit. Not only is it the compassionate thing to do, but it also provides the best means of protection for patients at the end of life when they are at their most vulnerable.

James Harris is the director of campaigns and communications at Dignity in Dying

The late Tony Nicklinson who fought for the right to die with doctors' assistance. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

Munich shootings: The bloody drama where everyone knows their part

A teenage gunman murdered nine people in Munich on Friday night. 

At time of writing, we know only certain facts about the gunman who shot and killed nine people and wounded many more at a shopping centre in Munich.

He was 18 years old. He was German-Iranian. He was reported to have shouted: "I am German." After murdering his innocent victims he killed himself.

We don't know his motive. We may never truly understand his motive. And yet, over the last few years, we have all come to know the way this story goes.

There is a crowd, usually at ease - concertgoers, revellers or, in this case, shoppers. Then the man - it's usually a man - arrives with a gun or whatever other tool of murder he can get his hands on. 

As he unleashes terror on the crowd, he shouts something. This is the crucial part. He may be a loner, an outsider or a crook, but a few sentences is all it takes to elevate him into the top ranks of the Islamic State or the neo-Nazi elite.

Even before the bystanders have reported this, world leaders are already reacting. In the case of Munich, the French president Francois Hollande called Friday night's tragedy a "disgusting terrorist attack" aimed at stirring up fear. 

Boris Johnson, the UK's new foreign secretary, went further. At 9.30pm, while the attack was ongoing, he said

"If, as seems very likely, this is another terrorist incident, then I think it proves once again that we have a global phenomenon now and a global sickness that we have to tackle both at source - in the areas where the cancer is being incubated in the Middle East - and also of course around the world."

On Saturday morning, reports of multiple gunmen had boiled down to one, now dead, teenager. the chief of Munich police stated the teenage gunman's motive was "fully unknown". Iran, his second country of citizenship, condemned "the killing of innocent and defenceless people". 

And Europe's onlookers are left with sympathy for the victims, and a question. How much meaning should we ascribe to such an attack? Is it evidence of what we fear - that Western Europe is under sustained attack from terrorists? Or is this simply the work of a murderous, attention-seeking teenager?

In Munich, mourners lay flowers. Flags fly at half mast. The facts will come out, eventually. But by that time, the world may have drawn its own conclusions.