Why cruel laws preventing terminally ill people from ending their life must change
There are times when political change is carried along by the tide of public opinion. The momentum grows and politicians are persuaded to act. So it seems to be with the constant murmurings about the need to address our antiquated laws on choice at the end of life which have recently become a popular, though not universal, demand.
The parliaments of Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man are already debating or planning to debate possible changes. Now too Westminster.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdWe will all have the freedom to vote according to our conscience. The campaign to introduce a law that would offer a choice was launched by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater this week. I have nailed my flag firmly to that mast and will support her Private Members Bill.
Why? Because I recognise the widespread demand to address an inequality in the law and for legislators like myself to debate whether a change to offer that choice is needed.
The problem with palliative care
I have never made any secret of my belief that the current situation is unacceptable. The law does not offer compassion and choice but instead can seem inhumane and cruel.
Working across party lines for seven years, I have secured a debate in parliament, spoken in several others and taken part in party conference fringe meetings. Most significantly, the Health Select Committee has spent 14 months on a cross-party inquiry which looked at every aspect of the issue.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIt received thousands of submissions and heard hours of testimony from all sides of the debate. It also interrogated evidence from parts of the world where the laws that will be under debate here were implemented years ago.
The committee’s final report provides exactly the sort of evidence on which the upcoming debate will draw and decisions will be made when the bill comes before parliament. For me, the most significant finding was confirmation that palliative care, however good, is not always sufficient to relieve suffering. And, curiously, that care often improves after assisted dying legislation is introduced.
Greater compassion required
In Scotland, where a bill by my Liberal Democrat colleague Liam McArthur is shortly to be debated, another is anticipated from Conservative MSP Miles Briggs to improve palliative care. That is surely an area where we all recognise the value of constant review and improvement.
I don’t know what I would want to do faced with a terminal diagnosis and potentially painful death. Whether I would want palliative care alone or the option to end it when and if I felt that care was no longer enough.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBut I would want that choice to be mine. More importantly perhaps I feel I don’t have the right to deny that choice to others. I believe the law as it stands does not offer those facing such circumstances the compassionate and humane options they deserve.
For those who can afford to go abroad, the law does not allow them or their families the peace of mind and emotional support offered by being together. Instead they face the uncertainty of knowing that existing legislation might regard them as criminals.
It's time we gave the issue of choice the attention it deserves and those closest to its reality plead for. It is a responsibility we will not take lightly.
Christine Jardine is the Scottish Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.