“No force on earth can stop an idea whose time has come.” Activists through the ages have taken smug comfort in Victor Hugo’s famous adage. To be on the right side of history holding out for an inevitable victory may reassure protestors spending damp Saturday afternoons at poorly attended rallies. But as anyone with a deep understanding of a subject will tell you, the truth is almost always more complicated than activists would have you believe. Just take the recent U-turn against childhood gender transitioning following the Cass Review. Progress doesn’t run in one linear direction.
But such nuance is lost on activists campaigning to legalise assisted dying. “Isn’t it typically British that we give the pets we love a pain-free, dignified, private death but we can’t offer it to the people we love,” assisted dying campaigner Esther Rantzen, who herself has a terminal illness, said two weeks ago. Kind-hearted but ill-informed Britons nod sympathetically, and people think of Hugo.
Whatever your stance on the matter, one must admit that this simplistic moralising has been hugely effective. Public opinion has shifted – with 75 per cent supporting legalising assisted dying, up by 12 percentage points in less than a year – and it looks like assisted dying will be legal across the UK very soon. A radical bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament recently, votes are taking place in the Isle of Man and Jersey, and Keir Starmer is expected to support legislation should he win the coming general election.
But as with so many progressive causes, activists aren’t telling the public the whole story. The truth is that assisted dying is almost impossible to legalise safely. Consent can be tricky to determine, especially for those with degenerative conditions, with patients feeling pressured to go through with the procedure if they consider themselves a “burden”. It’s little wonder that medical practitioners who treat patients at the end of their lives and see the complexities, such as those in palliative care, oncology and geriatric medicine, oppose assisted dying.
The fact that every country that has legalised assisted dying has expanded the scope to a worrying extent should give legislators pause for thought. We’re told the UK would never go the way of Canada, where over 4 per cent of deaths are at the hands of doctors, and who are considering expanding access further to the mentally ill (i.e. the state killing depressed people who want to die). But other jurisdictions with assisted dying have problems too. Just Google “assisted dying case in [insert country]” and you will find the campaigners saying they’d like to emulate what happens in the Netherlands, Switzerland, or Oregon in the States. You’ll also find ghoulish examples showing that assisted dying simply cannot be legalised with complete safety.
Even if campaigners like Rantzen won’t acknowledge them, there are legitimate concerns about creating a murky system where patient consent can be difficult to determine and the incentives of cash-strapped health services are potentially conflicting. Ultimately, we need to ask whether we’re empowering the individual or the state; granting a right to die, or a right to kill?
How did we get here, with the public so ill-informed about a complex issue? Assisted dying campaigners have followed a well-worn progressive playbook to great effect. Firstly, they’ve used celebrity spokespeople. Here, it’s Rantzen, an empowered articulate broadcaster the public is used to inviting into their front rooms. But in general, if a campaign uses celebrities, it’s worth checking the small print (nature and animal campaigns are particularly guilty here).
Next, they’ll frame the issue in black-and-white terms. When convenient, progressives will undermine the notion of free will (see campaigns against tobacco, fast food or soft drinks). Here, however, they frame assisted dying as a choice, or even an unassailable human right – which presumably must therefore be offered to all. And lastly, they’ll belittle and silence opposition. Critics of assisted dying are cast as religious wackos, while farmers opposing certain animal rights initiatives are deemed to be bloodthirsty psychos. Claire Coutinho’s response to Wes Streeting’s potentially libellous comments about Susan Hall summed it up: “They’ll shame you until you do as you’re told.”
But it’s not too late to resist the legalisation of assisted dying or to fight back against any misguided progressive cause. If they have the progressive playbook, we need a common sense playbook. Here it is. Firstly, bring the voices of the real people who’d be affected to the fore. For assisted dying, it will be vulnerable people who stand to suffer. Secondly, shine a light on the horrors happening in countries where assisted dying has been legalised. Next, get them to talk details. In this instance, who will perform the procedure? Is it the NHS? Would there be conflicts of interest? Or would it be outsourced? And finally, question their motives. Matthew Parris (admittedly not a likely supporter of a progressive cause) said he would “welcome [elderly people feeling] … social and cultural pressure” to end their lives to save the state money. That sort of inhumane utilitarianism doesn’t seem very progressive to me.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life
