Margo MacDonald: Caine's revelation will be sadly familiar

Published on Tuesday 12 October 2010 11:58

MICHAEL CAINE asked his father's doctor to end his dying parent's life, before nature, or God, would have done. My mailbag suggests a high percentage of readers were not surprised that Mr Micklewhite senior passed away under sedation that same night.

The movie star's description of events surrounding his father's death is an experience known to countless other families who've contacted me about my End of Life Assistance Bill. They've recalled the miserable discomfort or agitation experienced by a family member unlucky enough to be one of the small number of people for whom palliative care cannot bring about the dignified, peaceful end to life we all seek.

At the national conference of GPs in Harrogate last week, a roughly equal balance of knowing looks and affronted protestations greeted my reference to the "double effect" medication prescribed and administered by doctors for an unknown number of patients in the terminal stage of their life.

Doctors opposed to my Bill didn't deny the practice of administering a drug "for the relief of pain" that could have the additional effect of hastening death, but they instead chose to emphasize how much more doctors now know about drug dosage. Nor did they deny that some people still end their lives in misery, but they dismiss the need for my Bill by referring to the small number of people for whom palliative care, with or without sedation, cannot meet the patient's need.

Supporters of Care not Killing, the faith-based organisation that has run a well-funded, but misinformed, campaign against the Bill admits that the Bill will benefit the few, but "dis-benefit the many". Neither the GPs opposed to the Bill at last Friday's conference, nor witnesses who gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament last week could accept that patients having the legal right to ask for help to end their life, does not involve loss of rights for patients who oppose assisted dying.

I confess to being genuinely puzzled by this. I fully respect the right of people to oppose the Bill on grounds of conscience, but do not believe they have any moral superiority over those who support the Bill. It is an "enabling" Bill. Unlike the seatbelt law, it does not require you to do as it says or risk prosecution. Everyone can choose whether they wish to use, or involve themselves with, the aims, means and effects of this bill as compared to laws which leave the individual citizen with no legal choice about complying with the law - paying taxes, for example.

No citizen can cite dislike of paying taxes as a defence for not paying. Taxation is not usually seen as a matter of individual conscience, whereas beginning and end of life issues are.

Doctors, nurses, care workers or family members can simply refuse to help somebody who, in full command of their thinking capacity, and approaching death, wishes assistance to die in as peaceful a way as possible.My Bill seeks to recognise the autonomy of both patient and professional in this matter of conscience. This basic principle seems to cause difficulty for faith groups opposing it.

At the evidence session for the faiths, organised by the Scottish Parliament's committee dealing with the Bill, I asked the representatives of the Salvation Army, the Church of Scotland, the Methodists, Muslims, Jews, the Free Church of Scotland, etc, if they found my Bill "morally repugnant and ethically unacceptable."

Only the Free Church man, the Rev Gordon MacDonald, answered immediately and decisively in the affirmative. This was balanced by the equally firm negative from the Humanists, who claim to be "Good without God." But the others were uncomfortable with nailing their morality to the mast.

Yet, in the end, all of the faiths oppose the Bill because they believe God gives and ends life. Clergy, and church-attending lay people whom I count amongst my friends have also told me privately that they feel unable to be as "in your face" with their opposition as Gordon MacDonald, because of the difficulty in reaching people in our secular society. Instead they campaign against the Bill because it might produce undesirable results.

All the evidence given to the Bill committee shows fears of "the slippery slope" (the old, infirm and disabled being killed) are groundless. Witnesses from the Netherlands, Belgium and America also pointed to improved palliative care that had resulted from debating end of life issues when assisted dying bills were debated. In spite of such negativity, opinion polls show most people support the Bill.