Compassion, respect to life and individual choice, should guide assisted dying debate

Death is never an easy subject to deal with because it evokes strong human emotions, often rooted in deeply personal experiences. 

Every person has a story to tell, involving someone they loved or knew, who may have died following a long illness. It may also involve someone who has been given a short lifespan of a few weeks or months following the diagnosis of a terminal illness. 

And the situation only gets more complicated when it deals with persons who know their end is near or fast approaching and are going through a great deal of suffering. The emotions involved do not only pertain to the patient but also those close to them. In circumstances like these there are plentiful considerations at stake for the individual passing through the ordeal, their family members and society. 

This is why the debate on assisted dying, which is about to take off as a result of a government proposal put forward for public consultation, cannot be reduced to a mere good-bad, yes-no argument. 

The proposal unveiled last week by Reforms Parliamentary Secretary Rebecca Buttigieg is a good first step because it shows government’s intention to have a proper regulatory framework to prevent abuse, while respecting individual choice. However, this leader believes the proposal as it stands is very limited in scope and reach. 

Only mentally competent adults aged 18 and over, who are suffering from a terminal illness and with a life expectancy of six months will be able to request assisted dying, under the proposed framework. The choice will be offered on the national health service thus preventing its commercialisation. The proposal is pretty much modelled on the UK bill that cleared its first parliamentary hurdle last year. 

But the six-month prognosis means that people suffering from a degenerative illness will be ineligible for assisted dying because they are not considered terminally ill patients. By the time such patients are given a six-month life expectancy they will most likely be unable to make a request. 

It also excludes patients who may be suffering but whose life expectancy could be longer than six months. 

We believe that the right to die should be available to anyone aged 16 and over who has been given a medical diagnosis that can have serious debilitating or terminal consequences. 

The person should be able to choose to end their suffering. This is a compassionate argument in favour of individual choice when physical and mental suffering are inevitable and start chipping away at human dignity. 

The government proposal also suggests the introduction of the living will concept by which a person can draw up a will that gives medical directives and proposes care plans for future medical circumstances that may arise. We believe that a person should also be able to demand assisted dying in their living will. 

While we encourage a mature debate on assisted dying, shaped around the belief that an individual has a right to end their pain and choose when to depart, we equally argue that the state should continue investing in good palliative care. 

It is the state’s obligation to ensure that palliative care is available on the national health service to ensure a dignified ending to patients whose days are counted and who choose to live until their natural end. Their choice should also be respected. 

The government proposal on assisted dying contains several safeguards to prevent abuse, which can come from next of kin, who may have a selfish interest to see their parent or relative die. It is also positive that the proposal includes safeguards against decisions made by the patient on the spur of the moment when great physical or mental pain can cloud judgement. The fact that a request for assisted dying has to be evaluated by a specific board, which in turn has two weeks to give its verdict after hearing the patient, the patient’s medical specialist, and following a period of reflection for the patient to reconsider their position, helps create a filtering mechanism to ensure the patient’s decision is informed, free and without pressure. 

The debate on assisted suicide should be conducted with utmost sobriety, especially at a political level. Compassion, respect to life, and individual choice should guide the discussion.