Two matters of life and death surface publicly this November. The first, Remembrance. We will again weigh the tragic cost of wartime conflict, past and present. We will stand in reverence for the sacredness of each life lost.
The second will be the immensely difficult debate Parliament is to have on assisted dying. This issue cuts deep into our sensitivities and anxieties. We sit in reverence of life, of what its end may mean, and what its end may be like for those we love or for ourselves.
Compassion motivates this discussion on both sides. The cries of some for release from pain are acute. Hastening an end really does seem the merciful path in some situations. Yet two deep concerns sit with me.
The first is practical. Law is a blunt instrument at best, at worst ‘an ass’. Laser-like legislative
precision is needed in this case to open the door for some whilst protecting others. I find it hard to
see how any legislation can achieve this. Under the proposals, many nearing the end of their lives
would be made vulnerable. As Justin Welby has said, ‘My concern is that… permission [to die] slips
into being duty.’ It’s not difficult to see the dangers, for example when family money (inheritance
versus care costs) is at stake.
The second concern is existential. Modern medicine has long made decisions about life and death.
But legal assisted dying would give society a new console and new knobs. Palliative care is already
undervalued and under-resourced. The new console would instead present life and death as
tempting ‘cost-benefit’ options. It would offer the modern mantras of Choice and Control. But I
see a dark dystopian potential in this. Few of the console’s knobs may be activated at first. But
times change, goalposts shift, law itself shapes society’s norms. What knobs may be activated in
future? Not a wolf in sheep’s clothing perhaps, but a sheep with significant wolf DNA.
Which returns us to Remembrance. We remember the folly of which humanity is capable. Are we
really wise enough for this new console?
