SAVES is not affiliated with Exit International / Dr Philip Nitschke and opposes the public availability of a 'peaceful pill'.

The right-to-die reform movement is international, so that legislative activity in one jurisdiction impacts on many others in a range of ways. It may be by attempts to emulate successful legislation, or by heightened consciousness-raising, increasing resolve from the anger of injustice, gaining heart, or even becoming despondent about the progress of reforms overwhelmingly embraced across the western world. Rising momentum also attracts and entrenches reactionary responses from powerful vested interests who oppose any change to the status quo. The world has most recently been watching these dynamics play out in the UK. Spurred on by the widespread public anger at the fate of Dianne Pretty four years ago, as well as the increasing number of people traveling from the UK to Switzerland for assistance to die, a human rights lawyer, Lord Joffe, introduced a bill in 2004 to legalise voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

The bill was debated, but not voted on in the House of Lords, and was replaced by a narrower bill focusing on assisted suicide alone. This bill mirrored the successful Oregon legislation, but was voted down 140 votes to 100 in the House of Lords on 12th May, following seven hours of debate. Opposition to the bill included a petition of 100,000 signatures delivered to No 10 Downing St, and a rally outside Westminster Palace. There was strong opposition by Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of the Catholic Church who argued that a right to die would become a 'duty to die’; an argument which was central to the Anglican and Catholic churches' submissions to the bill. Other religious opposition was based upon the 'value of suffering', the claim that legislation would extend to children, and that the elderly will be at risk of economic arguments to deny them treatment.

Baroness Warnock a supporter of the Joffe bill and member of the House of Lords claimed that the major objection was based on the 'sanctity of human life’ argument. A further argument was that legalisation would distract attention from the need for palliative care funding, even though the Oregon experience does not bear this out. On the contrary, palliative care is better and more widely available in Oregon than almost anywhere in the US.

Lord Joffe argued

As a caring society we cannot sit back and complacently accept that terminally ill patients suffering unbearably should just continue to suffer for the good of society as a whole. We must find a solution to the unbearable suffering of patients whose needs cannot be met by palliative care.

Dr Helga Kuhse (Centre for Bioethics at Monash University) made a submission to the original Joffe bill in 2004 in which she proposed one such solution by arguing for a single regulatory framework for all medical end-of-life decisions for competent patients. This framework would not rely on the 'unworkable notion of intention' but on the substantive notion of respect for patient autonomy, expressed by informed consent. Under such a framework the patient and their doctor would be free to jointly decide on a mode of dying which would best meet the needs of the patient. As journalist Camilla Cavendish argued just prior to the vote

If the bill fails, it turns us all into potential Dianne Prettys. Let that be on the conscience of all those who so loudly proclaim that their opposition is based on conscience.

Lord Joffe has vowed to continue to press forward with legislation which he will reintroduce in 2007.

References:

(1) Graeme Wilson, The Daily Telegraph ‘Britain's Peers split as assisted dying Bill is derailed’, Political Correspondent, 13/05/2006
(2) Camilla Cavendish, 'I'd like to die with dignity. And I don't want the medieval brigade interfering', The Times 11/05/06
(3) British Humanist Association, 'In Bad Faith: The Facts About How Religious Groups Are Campaigning on Assisted Dying', May 2006