Joyce McMillan: Mature debate did parliament proud

Published on Wednesday 1 December 2010 15:55

ON WEDNESDAY, in the Scottish Parliament, Margo MacDonald's personal bill on assisted dying was voted down, by a massive margin of 85 votes to 16.

Some will welcome that decision, others will be disappointed by it. I think, though, that everyone who paid serious attention to the debate would agree that it was one of those moments when we were allowed a glimpse - just for a couple of hours - of how thoughtful, mature, humane and even moving national political debate can be, when it is freed from the bonds of party politics; the parliament, for once, decided this issue on a free vote, determined by members' experiences both as public servants, and as sons and daughters, parents and partners, loving human beings.

Part of the reason for the debate's huge emotional impact, of course, lies in the character of Margo MacDonald herself, Holyrood's only completely independent MSP, and a remarkable figure on the Scottish political scene ever since the day in 1973 when, as a young star of the SNP, she won the Westminster seat of Govan from Labour, in a storming by-election victory.

Those of us who were around then, when she was 30, can still remember her blonde-bombshell glamour, her fantastic figure, her high-octane romance with fellow MP Jim Sillars. And it's because, 37 years on, she embodies in her own determined presence that physical decline that we must all face, sooner or later, that her campaign on this issue commands so much respect; for the last decade or more, Margo has been living with Parkinson's disease, and with the inevitable slowing of speech and physical reactions it brings, even when well controlled by medication.

So now, the argument Margo MacDonald makes - with passion and reason - is that, subject to careful safeguards, people suffering from terminal conditions should be able to ask others to help them end their own lives, at a time of their own choosing; and in a perfect world, it might be difficult to object to the idea that people facing the end of life should be able to choose their own time of departure.

What makes the idea of such legislation so debatable, though, is the huge weight of evidence that we do not live in a perfect world; and that in our society, older people's assessment of their own worth, and of the value of their lives, is often negatively affected by a series of collective attitudes - to old age, to infirmity, to relative poverty, to the end of working life, and to the loss of beauty and sexual allure that comes with time - which are at best cruel, and at worst lethal in their implications.Only this week, a report published by the Patients' Association in England highlighted many cases of completely inadequate care of elderly people on hospital wards, with older patients left unfed, thirsty and filthy, simply because their full humanity is not recognised or responded to, by a significant minority of staff.

So far as many people in our image-obsessed society are concerned, "wrinklies" are ugly, useless, unemployed, expensive, and grubby, the butt of constant cruel humour; and even older people with loving families often internalise these attitudes, condemning themselves as "useless" and "a burden" even when they are much-loved and valued by those around them.

And in a society where those attitudes persist, we cannot afford to cross the line which tells vulnerable elderly people that they have the option of ending their lives, with official collusion.

Our insistence that each human life has value, to its last breath, is the discipline that drives us to provide properly for the old, to develop ever-improving palliative care, to make it possible for people to live life to the last available drop, and to sustain to the end the web of connections that subtly bind them to the rest of us.

We respond imperfectly to that discipline, of course; but so long as it exists, as an absolute value which we do not infringe, there is at least no cheap, easy option lurking in the background, tempting us to give up the fight for life, for compassion, for proper provision and for decent care, in favour of a quick and convenient early exit.

And in that sense, the argument for assisted dying represents the final frontier of our society's love affair with individualism; the idea that in the end, our lives are just our own property, to do with as we please.

In rejecting Margo MacDonald's bill, the Scottish Parliament of course flew in the face of public opinion, which is said to be running in favour of assisted suicide, by a margin of about four to one; and the idea of the right to die as a final human right has a certain obvious appeal, in a society dedicated to the idea that progress can always be equated with ever-increasing individual self-determination.

Yet it seems to me that this is one of those areas where the views of those who only offer an opinion are always going to diverge from the views of those who actually have to legislate, and to place on the statute book a measure that could bring about the end of many lives.

As John Donne reminded us so many centuries ago, no man - or woman - is an island. Just as life comes to us through the action of others, so our deaths are not just our own affair; and in the manner of our dying, we send a signal of hope or despair which has a profound impact on the lives of others.On Wednesday, we saw the Scottish Parliament doing what a legislature should do; delving beneath the surface of arguments, reflecting at length and considering the impact of the proposed new law not only on individuals, but on the texture of our whole society. And for that, we should be grateful; even as we wonder why such parliamentary occasions remain so rare, and wait for the undaunted Margo to return to the subject again, as she has promised to do, and as she undoubtedly will.