The Assisted Dying Bill: A Limit to Compassion?
‘Assisted suicide sends the message that disabled lives are less valuable than non-disabled lives. It suggests that when life becomes difficult or expensive, ending it is a reasonable option.’ - Not Dead Yet UK
by Majidah Chowdhury, BA International Relations 03/02/2025
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in October 2024, and passed its second reading in November. This Bill calls to legalise assisted dying, which has thus far been incriminated under the Suicide Act 1961, where offenders could face up to 14 years in prison. Assisted dying consists of an individual taking their own life through prescribed medication, which differs from euthanasia whereby it is typically doctors or medical professionals who assist in ending the patient's life. The Bill outlines that adults with only less than six months left to live are eligible, thus excluding those with disabilities or mental illnesses, as these are not considered to be terminal illnesses.
The Bill had a wide range of support from different areas of society, as reflected in the opinion poll carried out by Opinium, which revealed that 75% of UK adults supported the legislation being passed. Furthermore, the group Dignity in Dying is notable in campaigning to allow terminally ill patients to choose assisted dying. They argue that individuals should have the autonomous right to choose with dignity how and when to die in order to avoid unnecessary suffering. Marie Curie, the UK’s largest charity in providing care and support for people living with terminal illnesses and their families, believe in providing people with more choice and control over their death, which in some cases may be considered as the more compassionate option.
The case of R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice exemplifies how the law limited an individual's right to choose how they wish to die, which ultimately caused more pain and suffering for the patient. Nicklinson suffered a stroke in 2005, which left him paralysed from the neck down, describing his life as a ‘living nightmare.’ Although appealing to the High Court to be able to end his life in 2012, his request was denied, and he shortly died two weeks later from pneumonia after refusing food and water.
However, there are other opposing groups which stand heavily against the legislation. This includes the Church of England, which argues that human life is sacred and that deciding when it should end is up to God. They insist that assisted dying undermines the value of life, and allows for societal pressures to overwhelm vulnerable individuals.
Furthermore, disability rights campaigners such as Not Dead Yet UK insist that the Bill could lead to an individual ending their life prematurely due to societal pressures and coercion, especially if they feel as if they are a burden to their families and caregivers. This concern was vocalised by Dr. Catherine O'Neill, a disabled medical professional who commented on the risk of ‘subtle forms of coercion,’ and how they may affect a patient's decision. Moreover, this becoming a ‘slippery slope’ is also a point of concern, as many believe that over time the criteria of eligibility will expand, thus normalising the practice and desensitising the public to the gravity of the act. Phil Friend, a well-known disability rights campaigner and activist, has stated: ‘The more you make assisted suicide available, the more you create a climate where people feel their lives are not worth living. For disabled people, particularly, it’s dangerous to introduce a law that implies that some lives are better off ended because they are ‘inadequate’ or ‘unproductive.’’
As an alternative solution, the Association for Palliative Medicine, a professional organisation for healthcare professionals who work in palliative care, suggests that there can be an increase in funding and resources to offer high-quality end-of-life care, which can better accommodate to the needs of the terminally ill and alleviate suffering without resorting to assisted dying. This would require more intentional and consistent investment with a commitment to grow this form of healthcare.
As of the most recent reading in the House of Commons, 330 MPs were in favour of the Bill, whereas 275 MPs voted against it. It will be taken to the report stage in April 2025, where the Bill will be reviewed, and MPs will vote to make any amendments, continuing the debate of whether this is the right decision for the UK’s healthcare system moving forward.
