I confess I have more questions than answers. Although I expected the bill to be defeated, I didn't expect it to be quite so comprehensive. There were several obvious reasons for its defeat. First and foremost, it wasn't going to do what it said on the tin. It was called 'End of Life Assistance' when in fact the bill allowed those who were not at the end of their lives, but who could not live independently (whatever that meant) and found life intolerable, to avail themselves of this. Politicians had been given comparisons with Oregon, when it actually should have been compared with the Netherlands and they don't like being misled. Secondly, Care Not Killing played a big role in leading the opposition. It is a combination of religious and non religious organisations and includes amongst its membership the National Palliative Care Council for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Inclusion Scotland and RADAR, which is an umbrella disability organisation representing 900 disability groups. So the opposition got their sh*t together. Finally, Margo McDonald herself didn't perform well. She spent most of her opening speech attacking Care not Killing and made this comment;
According to Care Not Killing, elderly people in care will feel that it their duty to die. Some elderly people stuck in below-standard care homes do wish for an early death, but the bill's provisions do not cover them. I hope that we do not hear a litany of sanctimonious remarks about improving care provision. We have had more than enough time to do that.
The vote was a free one and I expected it to go against the bill, as I say. But I didn't expect 85/16 (and it would have been 87 if Karen Whitefield and Elaine Smith, my local MSPs hadn't been snowed in and who had declared their intentions). And it has left me with an intriguing problem. I thought that all the media attention and sympathy for euthanasia was being driven by the political classes. But in this vote, the political class has turned its face against it. I'm not sorry to be wrong on this, but it leaves me asking; who is driving the media on this? Who invited an English ethicist to a Scottish committee? Who ensured that the programme 'A Journey to Switzerland' was shown twice up here during the bill's passage? Who ensured that cases like Stafford and Dr Jane Barton got the minimum of coverage whereas Diane Pretty and others got the maximum? Who is doing this?
It may be that there is a difference between Scotland and England on this. We do have a higher church -going population, but Holyrood is quite capable of ignoring opinion from the churches. It is also quite capable of ignoring opinion from disability groups. There is a huge financial reason to legalise euthanasia; as it said in the explanatory notes to the bill;
Cost of means required to assist in death
97. The costs required to deliver an assisted death will be minimal and will inevitably be less
than those associated with providing ongoing medication and care.
Mike Rumbles did give a hint as to what had happened. He quoted Burke in his speech
As parliamentary representatives, we must resist the temptation to legislate because of opinion polls. In a representative parliamentary democracy such as ours, we are required to use our judgment. As long ago as 1774, the classical liberal Edmund Burke said:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays ... you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
But this ain't enough. So - any thoughts? Is it the media class themselves running this perhaps? Or them, plus some political friends? Or is this perhaps a zeitgeist, a debate that surfaces every generation, when we have forgotten all the reasons why we do not and should not go down this path? That will be my next post..
2 comments:
Julie - the list of patrons of Dignity in Dying will give you a roll call of at least some who are behind this.
The media may well cover it as they do because they recognise it as a 'good' story that will run and run.
Julie - yesterday, I left a comment on Witch Doctors blog. I find this whole affair quite worrying.
I do not feel that the End of Life Assistance Bill was driven by the political classes, but by those who are considered as 'celebrities' and a scattering of those in the medical profession who feel that they have a particular insight in the indignity of dying.
For sure, there are those that die an undignified death - my dad was denied morphine until the last day and I had to beg for it to be given to him then - but this has not coloured my judgement.
I have witnessed those who have been diagnosed as nearing 'imminent death' who have lived for many years after.
I can appreciate there are those with a terminal illness, who are of sound mind, who know that the last stage of their illness will lead to an agonising death - and if the truth be known, I can understand their awful dilemma. What would I want, if that were me?
Nevertheless, I do strongly feel that for assisted dying to become a legal right - we embark on the slippery slope to euthanasia of those who are considered a burden on society.
I see it happening on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Sometimes, the LCP is initiated as euthanasia by the back door.
The seeds are already sown.
Anna.
Post a Comment