Dear Member of Parliament,
I realise that you are probably being bombarded with letters, whether pro forma or individual, on the subject of euthanasia. It is a complex issue, and it is good to see that many MPs seem to be taking it seriously - although I have to say that it is disappointing that the government has limited the time for this bill to be scrutinised. Why the rush? The bill is 38 pages long and MPs will only have 5 hours to scrutinise it!
I find it fascinating to see such diversity in the people who support this legislation, with politicians such as Keir Starmer, Ed Miliband, Lisa Nandy and Liz Kendall all in favour, and likewise in those who are opposed: Sadiq Khan, Gordon Brown, Ed Davey, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahood, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner, Bridget Phillipson, Dianne Abbott are against.
How will you as an MP make up your mind? Perhaps you will justify supporting the bill because opinion polls tell us that this is what your constituents want? But surely by now you must recognise the frailty of opinion polls – especially those paid for by those with a strong agenda – like the wealthy campaign group Dignity in Dying. It's amazing how pollsters find what their sponsors want them to find. I suggest you read this article by Kevin Yuill in Spiked pointing out the flaws in the polls. Besides which, as an MP, would you vote for Capital Punishment if the majority of people in opinion polls said they were for it?
I once participated in a debate on this subject in a Scottish university where a vote was taken before and after the debate. It was one of the few debates I have taken part in where there was a significant change of view. The overwhelming majority before the debate were in favour of being "allowed to die in dignity at a place and time of your own choosing" (see how the motion, like the polls, was skewed). Afterwards the pro-euthanasia position was still the most popular but by a very narrow majority. One of the lecturers complained to me afterwards that the students changed their mind because they had never heard the opposite case be put to them!
Of course, when this is discussed on the BBC and in other media, it is usually focused around a particular individual or story – often very emotional. Who could argue against that?
But there are personal stories on both sides. I have direct experience of many – especially as a pastor. I myself was seriously ill in hospital, with a great deal of pain, and with a limited chance of living. To be honest if I had been offered euthanasia at that point I might have taken it – especially if I was told that I would be relieving my family. My faith in God would have prevented it, but I could understand the temptation.
Another friend who faced the same situation said that it was precisely because he could understand the pressures and the temptations that it should not be left to the individual to decide. It should not be an option.
So, what are my main reasons against? I realise your time is valuable so I will just mention three:
Coercion
When Victoria Derbyshire asked Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine on BBC Newsnight how anyone would know if someone was being coerced, the MP was unable to answer. That is because there is no answer. There is no legitimate safeguard. There are many different ways to coerce people.
For example, elderly people often feel that they are a burden. The Labour sponsor of the bill, Kim Leadbeater, even argued that feeling a burden was a legitimate reason to seek assisted suicide. But we are all burdens. I am a burden (as well as a blessing) to my family. We bear one another's burdens gladly. My elderly mother, now in her 80s, should not feel under any pressure at all to be euthanised in order to protect the inheritance of her children. When euthanasia is not an option, there is no pressure.
An extraordinary glimpse into the future, if this bill is passed, was seen this week on the London Tube. An advert, created by Let Us Choose, shows a woman dressed in her pyjamas, dancing in a kitchen with the slogan "My dying wish is my family won't see me suffer. And I won't have to." How strange that the Tube may soon not be allowed to display adverts for junk food, yet can advertise suicide when hundreds of people attempt suicide on the Tube every year!
When The Economist called assisted suicide a 'fundamental liberty', Andy Crouch answered succinctly, "You will have 'the right to die' for approximately 15 minutes before you start to feel 'the obligation to die'," which will be approximately 15 minutes before you are informed that (for the greater good, to be sure) you are "required to die".
The journalist Kevin McKenna in The Herald takes this one step further by pointing out that euthanasia can easily become a tool to get rid of the weak, the disabled, the poor and other 'economically unproductive' members of society. He cites the case of a physician who'd been the main organiser of euthanasia provision at a hospital in Calgary but was now a passionate opponent of euthanasia because he'd been appalled at how it was being used to target the weak and the vulnerable – including children and those who had made "advanced requests".
And lest you think this is an exaggeration, why not look at Matthew Parris's column in The Times a few months ago – where he said the unthinkable out loud: "Social and cultural pressure will grow on the terminally ill to hasten their own deaths so as 'not to be a burden' on others or themselves. I believe this will indeed come to pass. And I would welcome it."
Mission creep, or the slippery slope
AC Grayling, a patron of Dignity in Dying, in a podcast for the National Secular Society said that those who are confined to wheelchairs or the clinically depressed should also have the facility of assisted suicide. But he went further: why not have assisted suicide for any reason? It is, after all, the ultimate in human autonomy.
The writer Rupert Shortt, in The Eclipse of Christianity and Why it Matters, points out that, "In countries that allow either PAS [physician-assisted suicide] or voluntary euthanasia (lethal injections at the patient's request), it is striking how often patients access them for reasons other than pain and suffering. The most common reasons in the US state of Oregon are 'loss of autonomy' and 'a decreasing ability to engage in activities that make life enjoyable'. In 2016, the Dutch government, which legalised euthanasia in 1984, proposed extending its law to elderly people who have a 'completed life'. This naturally led pro-life campaigners to ask about the kind of signal such a change would send to the elderly. By legalising euthanasia and PAS in 2016, Canada moved even faster than the Netherlands."
What guarantee can you give that despite Leadbeater's promise of "the strongest safeguards in the world", the UK will not end up going the Dutch route, where last year 138 Dutch citizens with psychological conditions were allowed to kill themselves?
Which brings me on to my last point.
The Death Culture
This new law would not be a mild change to the law, enabling a compassionate approach to a few suffering people who need it. This would be a fundamental change in society, written into law. It would change, perhaps forever, the basic principle of the sanctity of life – which is the foundation of both law and medicine in the UK. It would be a further step in the advance to what I call 'the death culture' of the progressives.
Speaking of which, safeguarding minister Jess Phillips says that this is 'progress'. It is not. It is regress - a regression to the pre-Christian Greco/Roman/Pagan view of the world. A world in which the weak, vulnerable 'burdens' to society are just removed. You can call it compassion if you wish, but such Orwellian use of language doesn't take away from the fact that this is a regressive step back into a darkness where compassion was considered to be the ultimate weakness. Why would you vote for such a hellish society?
I, and many of your constituents, who have thought about this deeply, would echo the plea of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who urged that resources, time and energy be put into palliative care – not killing people. Care not killing. Doesn't that sound like something worth voting for?
Yours etc
David A Robertson
