Ultimately liberalism is about the individual and helping the individual empower themselves. To deny someone that empowerment strikes me as fundamentally wrong.
When it comes to formulating our own views on the thorny issue of assisted dying, all of us will have stories we can share of those who suffered, and each story will come with a distinct and unique perspective that the person writing or speaking about, knows on an all too personal level.
Equally, as human beings many of us will look at the same set of facts, apply our own moral codes and come to different conclusions. Assisted dying is an issue where your personal experiences will inform your view more than most issues and rightly, it is being treated as a free vote.
There have been compelling arguments on both sides. I have been particularly moved by Ed Davey’s approach to the issue, it does not come from a desire to restrict choice, moreover a desire to protect vulnerable people from pressure of feeling like a burden.
Likewise, the countless accounts people provide of their own lives or the lives of those they love and why they feel the pain is too much and it comes from a place of kindness and care.
I think this story is worth sharing.
John Clarke was a brilliant man with a first-rate mind, born in the 1930’s to schoolmaster John and Barbara, he went to school in the Glasgow suburbs, before going onto the University of Glasgow where he read medicine.
Following his graduation, he taught generations of doctors Anatomy at Cambridge University and before that, at St Barts in London.
Outside of his impressive career, he was a family man and was married to Irene. Together they had two daughters, Elizabeth and Catherine.
After his wife Irene died from Leukaemia, he was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease. For those who don’t know, MND is one of the evillest diseases known to humanity, slowly locking the person in their own body as the nerves fail, deteriorating, the mind however, is left relatively untouched.
John Clarke slowly lost his ability to speak and to move unaided, the university helped him a great deal to continue his work lecturing for longer than many of us thought he could. Eventually as the cruel condition took a greater hold, he had round the clock care and was housebound with his daughters spending countless days in the house, supporting him.
John, known to me affectionately as Grandad South, suffered greatly at the hands of this cruel and callous condition. Aged 13, I saw the brilliant man with the mischievous sense of humour and an unfaltering kindness, deteriorate in a way that was so harmful and painful to see.
I cannot for one second pretend that I know he would have taken the opportunity to end the physical and mental anguish I can only think about, or whether he would have chosen to continue.
But as the debate goes on, I think about this time more than a decade ago over and over again, one thought that reverberates through my mind is this.
It was cruel to deny him the choice then and it is cruel to deny people a choice today.
This bill provides the starting point for meaningful right choose, it is not perfect but our parliamentary process and the nature of the bill means that there are enough MPs with reservations to materially improve the quality of the bill in committee stage. However, throwing it out at second reading would be wrong.
* Callum Robertson is a teacher and member of the Federal Board
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1297
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Brexit putting England and Wales tap water safety at risk
Regional Candidates Committee - let the verwaltung* commence (but not until the New Year)
Should Labour move to the right on immigration? The Week in Polls
4th Dec
Nonconformistradical
David Garlick
Simon R
Mick Taylor
Diana Simpson
6 Comments
Do we really have choice when the palliative care system is so underfunded and largely dependent on charities? I have experienced this at first hand too; my sister died in a hospice in 2022 from MND; my wife had died at home two years earlier from one of the rarer dementias with similar symptoms to MND. This is why I am conflicted about assisted suicide; I can see that some people with untreatable conditions can have a rational desire to die, but I am concerned that if this Bill passes we will continue to choose not to put enough resources into palliative care and not give those with terminal illnesses who don’t want assisted suicide a better quality of life in their last days.
I am very sorry to about Lawrence Cox’s sad family experiences, and I agree with his conclusion.
“I cannot for one second pretend that I know he would have taken the opportunity to end the physical and mental anguish I can only think about, or whether he would have chosen to continue.”
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make with this sad sexample. If you accept that John Clarke did not in fact seek assisted dying nor complain that it was not available to him in the UK then it what sense was he denied it?
Also it is possible for a person whho feels pressurised into assisted dying whether by coercion or because they feel themselves to be a burden or for any other reason to b e denied the choice of not dying. That is my reservation on the matter. Therefore I agree with the above commentors that access to paliative care should be the priority.
Another, lesser, concern is that doctor who do not wish to be involved in assisted dying decisions should be allowed to opt out.
For me the most pertinent “fact” Ive read in all the arguments is that a significant proportion of those awarded the “end of life ” package don’t actually use it. But clearly they feel “empowered” to know that they have the option if “things get too much.” Individual empowerment is a Liberal principle so, having vacillated, I’m now in favour of M/s Leadbeater’s bill (and as one of her constituents I shall Email her tomorrow to tell her.)
“the key liberal principle of choice”
Indeed. But in the case of “assisted dying” or “helping someone to kill themselves” or however you decide to describe the practice, and unlike almost every other choice there is no possibility of return. You cannot change your mind once the deed is done.
Consider – should people be allowed to sell themselves into slavery if they freely choose to do it?
Separately, in my job (I am a solicitor) I continually see people seek to obtain personal advantage from their nearest and dearest, especially in fights over inheritances, including when the potential benefactor is still alive. I have no doubt people will seek to manipulate the provisions of the Assisted Dying law – if it becomes law – in this way. People will say the law is drafted will protect the vulnerable . So there are – and they are indeed tight – but bad people work to get round such things. They always have and always will.
Lastly what is proposed is not an incremental change. It is huge – it is the lifting of a taboo around the deliberate ending of human life. If this bill is passed, that taboo is gone and the next step – the next loosening of the controls – will be a whole lot easier.
.
Personal autonomy is what drives me to support assisted dying. I do wish the media would stop talking about the Bill being about allowing someone to end their life. Suicide has not been illegal for some time, only helping someone to do it. I accept many people who would like to end their lives need help to do so whether this is physical or emotional. Even if it is the wrong decison and who is going to judge, preventing someone from doing something as personal is disrespectful to them.