Thank you, Helen. Process is always important, even when substance isn't much affected by fast and loose procedures. Here, as you note, procedure is important for all sorts of reasons, not least in gaining acceptance of (any) law. I don't know the ins and outs of your Federal (or for that matter State/Territorial) procedure, but you make things as clear as necessary. Five hours of debate is not enough for such a bill. If arguments for it are cogent enough, debate will help public acceptance.
One quibble. You say that societies condemn murder and don't "manage" it. "Murder" is doing a bit too much work here, because the finding of "murder" at least where I come from, is something quite managed indeed. To find that a murder has been committed involves distinctions among various kinds of and motives for intentional (or quasi-intentional) killings of human beings. I could go on, but I'm sure you see the point I'm attempting to make.
Thanks great analysis. I’d just read Spiked (Tom Slater) and commented. I voted for our version in NZ but was appalled by what Canada is doing so your analysis helped to clarify some fuzzy thinking of my own.
There's also the rather practical issue of how euthanasia is actually accomplished. In May, Jordan Peterson interviewed Kelsi Sheren. In The Horrifying Truth Behind MAID They Aren't Telling You, available on YouTube, she claims to have learned that the pharmaceutical agent currently used, which is the same one administered to death row inmates, causes the lungs to fill with fluid. Because people are first given a paralyzing agent, the are unable to let anyone know that they are in fact very aware that they are slowly drowning.
If this is true, it is indeed horrifying. I couldn't help but wonder if this was the same product used for the aged pets I've had euthanized over the years.
I sincerely hope independent journalists such as yourself with also look into this aspect of assisted suicide.
First, I don’t know if it’s true. However, if it is true, I can likely explain why. Over the course of a number of years, there have been repeated attempts by pharmaceutical companies outside the US, China, Saudi Arabia etc (basically countries that execute people) to make the drugs needed for lethal injections increasingly difficult to both manufacture and obtain.
The Chinese response has been, “sod you, we’ll make our own” or to revert to the use of firing squads and hanging. The US, because of its federal structure, is running off in 50 different directions at once. The Saudis are just working really hard to execute fewer people, and have also reverted to Islam’s traditional method—beheading with a sharp sword.
Thanks, Helen. Like you, in principle, I support people being able to make a decision, under certain limited circumstances, to choose to die in the most effective and peaceful way possible, with the assistance of doctors and pharmacists. I have held this view for years. However, I see the legislature and judiciary of the UK as being far closer to Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands than to Australia or Switzerland. From my point of view, I see - as a result of the very poor procedure you outline perfectly - the "slippery slope" being not a bug, but a feature. I also have a slightly modified version of "better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent be punished" pushing to the front of my mind, to the effect of "better ten people who want to die are denied than one who wishes to live feel they should die". I don't think this is either virtue ethics, nor Consequentialism, but I could be wrong. A recent report showing that husbands kill their terminally ill wives at a far higher rate than the other way around leaves me even more nervous about the proposed legislation. This is major legislation, and needs to be approached differently than it is.
Great piece, as usual - I'm with you on part A ("goes down in a heap"), not part B ("does it properly"). The Australian laws just haven't had enough time to gather slippery slope speed - they will because, as you have noted elsewhere, we are rapidly losing our ability to govern effectively. And our medical profession long ago gave in to reflexive utilitarianism - never give a utilitarian any say in your end-of-life decisions.
I disagree on the philosophical underpinnings: to me, the anti-euthanasia case that actually computes is a consequentialist one (will it cause the state or the medical system to push "unwanted" people into suicide?), whereas the pro-euthanasia case is deontological (freedom to make decisions that do not affect other people). But one of the many problems with consequentialism is that it can easily justify both sides on any question, which makes it a rather useless tool for deciding anything (as opposed to showing off how smart one is).
Sorry, Helen, but there is no way to "do this kind of thing properly". No aspect of government should have a hand in killing humans. That is in my way of thinking a categorical imperative that applies when life is created, when death is imminent, and as punishment for crime. What distinguishes us from all other animals is we choose to kill and because we can choose we should always choose life.
I see your point, but I’m not a Kantian. Kant’s ideas are why we have a gimcrack system of international “law” that doesn’t work and which also serves to undermine electoral democracy in those developed states which do have functioning governments.
Kant’s world view is premised on the belief there is a thing called truth. Mathematics state truths. If you believe as I do that social relations are capable of truth assertions, ones that are not context dependent, then one such truth assertion is killing is wrong.
The problem with what is called international law, is it has become, as if it was ever otherwise, context dependent, which means it is not law at all. Instead, it consists of rules adopted by those with power to say so.
Killing in the act of self-defense or just war are, of course, justifiable. But as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. If we can agree that killing a human is wrong ab initio then nothing makes it right. A justifiable or excusable killing may avoid punishment for crime, but that is an outcome that we've decided on as a matter of policy, and it is not necessarily so.
I'm talking purely the morality of the act. If killing is always wrong, even killing in self defense is wrong, even if not punishable. War offers the excuse that the other person might be shooting at you, but not necessarily, and certainly not in the case of misplaced artillery fire or bombers hitting their targets but causing "collateral" damage.
Killing a man who is raping someone is not wrong in my book and that isn't even self defense.
The Canadian MAID act resulted from the intervention of the Canadian High court on the basis of their interpretation of the Canadian human rights charter vs the suicide statute. The court then went onto strike down the `death must be reasonably forseeable' part of the MAID act as being contrary to the 'life, liberty and security' of the charter. So basically they opened the door to suicide in Canada becoming the fifth leading cause of death (It will get worse of course). There are a fairly obvious lessons for the Britain that Blair built I think.
Could you see the execution (excuse the pun) of voluntary euthanasia being put in the hands of religious and quasi-religious organisations in the future? Perhaps this would offer a more personalised framework where the government sets basic legislative limits, but a diversity of smaller organisations are given some leeway in operations (allowing individuals to choose which path they prefer, and for aggregate data on the performance of different organisations to be monitored for continuous system wide improvement). Of course all of that is assuming competent governance. In the absence of that could rogue religious groups go it alone? A small, devoted cult sacrificing their own well being to spread the right to a peaceful death against the impositions of a tyrannical government feels strangely Christian and post-Christian at the same time.
In the late 1970s, the Jim Jones cult did "go it alone." Jones started out as a Christian minister. The murder-suicide via cyanide of over 900 members of his quasi-religious organization could, in that respect, be considered post-Christian since Christianity, like most major religions, frowns on suicide.
As much as I was very woke in my life until a couple of years ago, having a mother who was a geriatric nurse always made me against euthanasia. Sometimes the grandkids are only visiting because they’re trying to buy a house and grandma just won’t die…
Having looked through the bill, it is a dog's dinner tbh. So I am more annoyed by the process than the principle. I have no issues with the Swiss model which is more honest than most around the world. However Leadbeater's private members bill is a dishonest bill of goods and doesn't understand the legal framework it is meant to be operating under.
For example, with the Mental Capacity Act and the Gillick judgment, the NHS assumes that 16 year olds have capacity to consent to medical procedures. The bill reports to be for adults but that won't survive contact with the MCA/Gillick. My expectation is that a 13yo with capacity and a terminal diagnosis could successfully get court approval to end their life.
I am not sure whether it is dishonesty or ignorance but it doesn't fill me with confidence.
I fully agree with you on UK state capacity to deliver this is very weak especially as we have both a social care crisis and a palliative system dependant on charity. That's going to push the UK towards Canadian type statistics where the poorest percentiles are disproportionately represented.
I also don't like the 6 months qualifier threshold. Not only because only one in three deaths will fall within that timeframe but also others can experience unbearable suffering yet be a long way away from their death. The methodology is flawed and itself cruel. If we are to have "assisted dying" then we need a more sophisticated approach that respects people's choices.
If we are to have this in England and Wales then I would suggest that a) the initial period would only see private providers b) NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) run a longitudinal study on those private providers c) a sunset clause on the initial act. Parliament can debate the findings of the longitudinal study and decide whether to extend the policy into the NHS, keep the current arrangement or let the practice end. It would need at least ten years for the study to be meaningful so perhaps a sunset clause of twelve years would be appropriate?
I don't particularly have confidence in Parliament, government, NHS or other parts of the public estate to get this right sadly.
"Those of you from federal systems..."
Are all too familiar with the federal government asserting itself where it has absolutely no business, to wit: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/686
The kind of thing that can actually align me with raging leftist atheists - not a thing easily done.
Thank you, Helen. Process is always important, even when substance isn't much affected by fast and loose procedures. Here, as you note, procedure is important for all sorts of reasons, not least in gaining acceptance of (any) law. I don't know the ins and outs of your Federal (or for that matter State/Territorial) procedure, but you make things as clear as necessary. Five hours of debate is not enough for such a bill. If arguments for it are cogent enough, debate will help public acceptance.
One quibble. You say that societies condemn murder and don't "manage" it. "Murder" is doing a bit too much work here, because the finding of "murder" at least where I come from, is something quite managed indeed. To find that a murder has been committed involves distinctions among various kinds of and motives for intentional (or quasi-intentional) killings of human beings. I could go on, but I'm sure you see the point I'm attempting to make.
Thanks great analysis. I’d just read Spiked (Tom Slater) and commented. I voted for our version in NZ but was appalled by what Canada is doing so your analysis helped to clarify some fuzzy thinking of my own.
There's also the rather practical issue of how euthanasia is actually accomplished. In May, Jordan Peterson interviewed Kelsi Sheren. In The Horrifying Truth Behind MAID They Aren't Telling You, available on YouTube, she claims to have learned that the pharmaceutical agent currently used, which is the same one administered to death row inmates, causes the lungs to fill with fluid. Because people are first given a paralyzing agent, the are unable to let anyone know that they are in fact very aware that they are slowly drowning.
If this is true, it is indeed horrifying. I couldn't help but wonder if this was the same product used for the aged pets I've had euthanized over the years.
I sincerely hope independent journalists such as yourself with also look into this aspect of assisted suicide.
First, I don’t know if it’s true. However, if it is true, I can likely explain why. Over the course of a number of years, there have been repeated attempts by pharmaceutical companies outside the US, China, Saudi Arabia etc (basically countries that execute people) to make the drugs needed for lethal injections increasingly difficult to both manufacture and obtain.
The Chinese response has been, “sod you, we’ll make our own” or to revert to the use of firing squads and hanging. The US, because of its federal structure, is running off in 50 different directions at once. The Saudis are just working really hard to execute fewer people, and have also reverted to Islam’s traditional method—beheading with a sharp sword.
Agreed, which is why I hope someone who is pro legislation allowing euthanasia might be compelled to look into it.
Thanks, Helen. Like you, in principle, I support people being able to make a decision, under certain limited circumstances, to choose to die in the most effective and peaceful way possible, with the assistance of doctors and pharmacists. I have held this view for years. However, I see the legislature and judiciary of the UK as being far closer to Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands than to Australia or Switzerland. From my point of view, I see - as a result of the very poor procedure you outline perfectly - the "slippery slope" being not a bug, but a feature. I also have a slightly modified version of "better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent be punished" pushing to the front of my mind, to the effect of "better ten people who want to die are denied than one who wishes to live feel they should die". I don't think this is either virtue ethics, nor Consequentialism, but I could be wrong. A recent report showing that husbands kill their terminally ill wives at a far higher rate than the other way around leaves me even more nervous about the proposed legislation. This is major legislation, and needs to be approached differently than it is.
Great piece, as usual - I'm with you on part A ("goes down in a heap"), not part B ("does it properly"). The Australian laws just haven't had enough time to gather slippery slope speed - they will because, as you have noted elsewhere, we are rapidly losing our ability to govern effectively. And our medical profession long ago gave in to reflexive utilitarianism - never give a utilitarian any say in your end-of-life decisions.
So true!
I disagree on the philosophical underpinnings: to me, the anti-euthanasia case that actually computes is a consequentialist one (will it cause the state or the medical system to push "unwanted" people into suicide?), whereas the pro-euthanasia case is deontological (freedom to make decisions that do not affect other people). But one of the many problems with consequentialism is that it can easily justify both sides on any question, which makes it a rather useless tool for deciding anything (as opposed to showing off how smart one is).
Sorry, Helen, but there is no way to "do this kind of thing properly". No aspect of government should have a hand in killing humans. That is in my way of thinking a categorical imperative that applies when life is created, when death is imminent, and as punishment for crime. What distinguishes us from all other animals is we choose to kill and because we can choose we should always choose life.
I see your point, but I’m not a Kantian. Kant’s ideas are why we have a gimcrack system of international “law” that doesn’t work and which also serves to undermine electoral democracy in those developed states which do have functioning governments.
Kant’s world view is premised on the belief there is a thing called truth. Mathematics state truths. If you believe as I do that social relations are capable of truth assertions, ones that are not context dependent, then one such truth assertion is killing is wrong.
The problem with what is called international law, is it has become, as if it was ever otherwise, context dependent, which means it is not law at all. Instead, it consists of rules adopted by those with power to say so.
Killing is wrong, under certain conditions, and completely justifiable under others. So much for your one truth assertion.
Killing in the act of self-defense or just war are, of course, justifiable. But as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. If we can agree that killing a human is wrong ab initio then nothing makes it right. A justifiable or excusable killing may avoid punishment for crime, but that is an outcome that we've decided on as a matter of policy, and it is not necessarily so.
I'm talking purely the morality of the act. If killing is always wrong, even killing in self defense is wrong, even if not punishable. War offers the excuse that the other person might be shooting at you, but not necessarily, and certainly not in the case of misplaced artillery fire or bombers hitting their targets but causing "collateral" damage.
Killing a man who is raping someone is not wrong in my book and that isn't even self defense.
The Canadian MAID act resulted from the intervention of the Canadian High court on the basis of their interpretation of the Canadian human rights charter vs the suicide statute. The court then went onto strike down the `death must be reasonably forseeable' part of the MAID act as being contrary to the 'life, liberty and security' of the charter. So basically they opened the door to suicide in Canada becoming the fifth leading cause of death (It will get worse of course). There are a fairly obvious lessons for the Britain that Blair built I think.
Yes, the UK is more like Canada than Australia or Switzerland, sadly.
I think the UK still has better superior courts than Canada though, albeit Australia has been very lucky in that regard.
Could you see the execution (excuse the pun) of voluntary euthanasia being put in the hands of religious and quasi-religious organisations in the future? Perhaps this would offer a more personalised framework where the government sets basic legislative limits, but a diversity of smaller organisations are given some leeway in operations (allowing individuals to choose which path they prefer, and for aggregate data on the performance of different organisations to be monitored for continuous system wide improvement). Of course all of that is assuming competent governance. In the absence of that could rogue religious groups go it alone? A small, devoted cult sacrificing their own well being to spread the right to a peaceful death against the impositions of a tyrannical government feels strangely Christian and post-Christian at the same time.
In the late 1970s, the Jim Jones cult did "go it alone." Jones started out as a Christian minister. The murder-suicide via cyanide of over 900 members of his quasi-religious organization could, in that respect, be considered post-Christian since Christianity, like most major religions, frowns on suicide.
As much as I was very woke in my life until a couple of years ago, having a mother who was a geriatric nurse always made me against euthanasia. Sometimes the grandkids are only visiting because they’re trying to buy a house and grandma just won’t die…
Having looked through the bill, it is a dog's dinner tbh. So I am more annoyed by the process than the principle. I have no issues with the Swiss model which is more honest than most around the world. However Leadbeater's private members bill is a dishonest bill of goods and doesn't understand the legal framework it is meant to be operating under.
For example, with the Mental Capacity Act and the Gillick judgment, the NHS assumes that 16 year olds have capacity to consent to medical procedures. The bill reports to be for adults but that won't survive contact with the MCA/Gillick. My expectation is that a 13yo with capacity and a terminal diagnosis could successfully get court approval to end their life.
I am not sure whether it is dishonesty or ignorance but it doesn't fill me with confidence.
I fully agree with you on UK state capacity to deliver this is very weak especially as we have both a social care crisis and a palliative system dependant on charity. That's going to push the UK towards Canadian type statistics where the poorest percentiles are disproportionately represented.
I also don't like the 6 months qualifier threshold. Not only because only one in three deaths will fall within that timeframe but also others can experience unbearable suffering yet be a long way away from their death. The methodology is flawed and itself cruel. If we are to have "assisted dying" then we need a more sophisticated approach that respects people's choices.
If we are to have this in England and Wales then I would suggest that a) the initial period would only see private providers b) NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) run a longitudinal study on those private providers c) a sunset clause on the initial act. Parliament can debate the findings of the longitudinal study and decide whether to extend the policy into the NHS, keep the current arrangement or let the practice end. It would need at least ten years for the study to be meaningful so perhaps a sunset clause of twelve years would be appropriate?
I don't particularly have confidence in Parliament, government, NHS or other parts of the public estate to get this right sadly.
Really thoughtful comment. Thank-you.