The BHA has long campaigned for a humane assisted suicide law not just for the terminally ill, but for the incurably suffering as well – people like Debbie Purdy, Jean Davies, and Tony Nicklinson
Everyone at the British Humanist Association (BHA) was deeply saddened to hear about the death of Debbie Purdy just before Christmas, after taking the decision to starve herself. Debbie was an inspirational campaigner for reforming the law on assisted dying, and hers was an enormously dignified voice in public debate over many years. It was her brave campaigning that led to the publication of new legal guidance on the prosecution of family members who help loved ones to end their lives.
This was a step forward, but only a very small one because the new guidelines did not change the law. In spite of all Debbie’s courageous efforts and campaigning until the very end, assisted dying remains against the law in the UK. This means that thousands of terminally ill and permanently and incurably suffering people across the country are unable to enjoy their lives as much as they can, because they cannot rely on receiving the assistance they may need to end their lives in circumstances of their choosing, in dignity and free from pain.
Much recent media attention has focused on Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill, currently before the House of Lords. If passed, the Bill would allow terminally ill patients to request life-ending medication from their doctor. This represents another step forward, preventing unnecessary, prolonged suffering by providing those who are terminally ill with choice and control over how and when they end their lives.
But though this is a step in the right direction, it does not go anywhere near far enough. As Debbie Purdy pointed out in her final article before her death, the Bill only extends to terminally ill people judged by a doctor to be within six months of the end of their life. That excludes people who are permanently and incurably suffering – people like Debbie as well as the late Tony Nicklinson and Jean Davies, whose illnesses were not terminal but who had reached a point where they simply could not tolerate continuing to suffer any longer.
As Debbie made clear, the Bill must be passed – but it is just not enough. It does not provide a solution for people like her who seek permission to get support to end their lives in dignity, should living become truly unbearable. The BHA has long wished to see an assisted dying law which is responsive to the needs of people like Debbie who are permanently and incurably suffering, as well as those who are suffering from a terminal illness – and the majority of the public agrees.
Now is the time to act, by reforming the law to legalise assisted dying both for people suffering from a terminal illness and for those who are permanently and incurably suffering. If the law is not changed, people will continue to die after suffering for prolonged periods, in pain and robbed of their dignity. We owe it to courageous people like Debbie Purdy to make sure that this is no longer the case.
I support assisted suicide. When it is made clear that I am not cured of something, it is mere waste and moreover painful to live. In such case I should be permitted to die with the help of a doctor.
In our country, India there was a great man called Acharya Vinobha Bhave who followed Gandhian way, renounced everything and started a movement called Land Gifts Mission to collect land from the landlords (land-owners) and gift it to the poor peasants.
Over a period of twenty years, Vinoba walked through the length & breadth of our country and collected a total of four million acres of land and distributed it to the peasants. He never used any kind of transportation. He walked thousands of miles for this purpose. As a result, he became weak and in November 1982, Vinoba fell seriously ill and decided to end his life as he was no longer useful to the society. He reached Sabarmathi Ashram, established by Gandhi and refused to accept any kind of food, water and medicine. On 15 November, 1982,he passed away. While he was fasting, the then Prime Minister of our country, Indira Gandhi went to the place and requested him to accept at least water but he declined.
There are many people in our country who have been requesting the authorities to grant assisted suicide.
Four years ago, after a bad stroke which left her unable to walk or to swallow, and having suffered ill health and poor mobility for some years, my elderly mother in law also decided to starve to death it took about 6 weeks. We need the law changed to prevent unnecessary suffering.
I’m in favour of assisted dying as it should lay on oneself the decision to end their own life without having to endure perhaps years of suffering to come. I’m a fully able and healthy person. I think a bill is necessary for us to move forward. Having said that, people with disabilities and that oppose the bill have a point and I quote:
“Disabled people are opposed to any change in the law on Assisted Suicide because they fear it will put their lives at risk. They do not accept that the safeguards proposed in the Bill are adequate.”
(https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/21181-opposing-an-assisted-dying-law)
Of course the right to die at a moment of our choice is, and it should be, a human choice. The matter seems to have wider implications, however, when the law is not good enough. It neither goes fully forward and can to this extent be seen as a partial achievement but nevertheless a step forward, it also, for it’s lack of safeguards to disabled people, is a step backwards. It seems to me that for the sake of a small progress in the right direction we are willing to let exposed and unprotected people who not only oppose to the bill but also those who would be put in a position in which the full right over their own lives will not be a truly option made in independence and likely fall victim of other’s decision. The law already has a name for that and it’s is not what we want, at least not me.
Some years ago, my brothers and I were at our mum’s bedside, and when she became terminally ill, were persuaded by medical staff that the pseudo scientific ‘Liverpool Pathway’ would provide her with a calm and pain free exit.
Four weeks later, without painkilling drugs, food or water (as her swallowing reflex was lost), she managed to die. We had promised her that she would not have to suffer at the end of her life, but were unable to prevent it. The law must change.