Show Hide image

'My right to euthanasia'

The British MS-sufferer who went to court to try to ensure her husband wouldn't be prosecuted if he

“I was really upset,” said Debbie Purdy after judges in the High Court ruled against her. “Perhaps it was naïve of me, but I was absolutely convinced we were going to win.”

Purdy has Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and plans to go to Switzerland and have a doctor help her die when the pain gets to be unbearable.

She would like her husband to accompany her but is worried that he could face up to 14 years in jail under a law dating from 1961.

Ultimately, if she does not win her case she will go earlier than planned, when she still has the faculties to administer the drugs to herself and won't need to directly involved anyone else.

“We were only asking for clarity, not asking for anything grandiose.”

Now she's been granted leave to take her case to the Court of Appeal.

“It's been surprising how much interest there has been – journalists, neighbours, people on the train - who have come up to me and said, 'my aunt, my uncle, was in the same position'. Even on the train home from London, I met a lady with breast cancer. She said to me, 'I'm really glad you're brave enough to do this. I'm not.'”

“This has refocused my belief in humanity – we don't think only of ourselves. People are more than that – they have compassion and the ability to see others point of view.

“It's incredible, isn't it?”

Ultimately there needs to be a rethink at Parliamentary level but Purdy doubts politicians have the courage to confront this particular issue preferring to leave the battles to the courts.

“The law hasn't been looked at since 1961 – in that time medical, social and cultural advances have been huge,” she points out.

“I think it's cowardice on the part of politicians: they are scared they might lose votes.”

She doesn't think that politicians should influence how she chooses to die. “People should be trusted more to make decisions.”

Not all of her friends agree with the decision that she will eventually make to kill herself when the pain becomes unbearable. “A friend who is very religious and doesn't think it's the right decision said to me after the court case, 'I'm really disappointed for you, because it's your choice.'”

“Even my husband's not 100 per cent certain what he would do if he were in this position. It's a decision he would do everything to stop me making.”

He does however realise the decision isn't his. As Purdy says: “He's not the one who takes pain killers before he gets out of bed in the morning or is lying on the floor, calling to be helped to get up.”

Over 100 British people have travelled to Zurich to die and everybody except one was accompanied by friends or relatives explained Purdy. “Because of the law, it forced terrible decisions. Though no one's been prosecuted yet, one who accompanied someone to Switzerland was investigated for nine months. Somebody will get prosecuted unless we clarify.”

“Because my husband is black and he's foreign, if they're going to prosecute someone, it's going to be him, not some 70-year-old English woman. It's frightening to contemplate – I love him.”

Those who accompany those to die aren't the only ones who face possible persecution. Currently under British law it is illegal for doctors to offer counselling regarding assisted suicide. Purdy wonders, “How can we protect doctors? A doctor's first instinct is compassion.”

Purdy feels that having the ability to have an assisted suicide increases the quality of care. “Hospice care is great but it isn't right for everybody.”

In the US state of Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal for 10 years, more than 300 people have used it to die. Purdy feels that the quality of care has improved there as “the number of patients dying from too many pain medications (which are often prescribed to those in chronic pain) has gone down.”

Purdy attended a discussion on the topic following the verdict of her case. “Some people suggested that this issue is statistically insignificant,” she said. “They [people who went to die in Switzerland] were vibrant, real people who didn't want their last months to be painful or degrading.

“Some think it's a theoretical, ethical discussion. But this is my life.”

Purdy disagrees with those who don't want to legalise mercy killings because they feel the law protects vulnerable people. Though she is in a wheelchair and has lost the muscular ability to open child proof tops, she doesn't feel that her disability has made her vulnerable. “I fall over on the floor a lot – it's annoying not undignified. That I'm referred to as a victim or vulnerable is undignified.”

“This sounds selfish but this is my life – there's not much I can do about the situation in Democratic Republic of Congo. I need to do what I can to make my life longer – and maybe contribute.”

Purdy says that changing the law would allow people like her who are in chronic pain to live worry-free knowing that they have a way out. “We need a safety net so we can walk on a high wire. If the pain becomes too much and if we are serious, not coerced, then we can ask for help to end our lives.”

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times