In April of this year, the Labour Party revived a proposal to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill individuals, stipulating that they must be over 18 and possess full capacity to make the decision. The right to end one’s life has been debated and contested in British politics since 1997 due to its inherent complexities, risks and vulnerabilities; in contrast, Swiss legislation on assisted dying has been in effect since 1942 and has, as of yet, stood the test of time.
So, what is the present public rhetoric over the bill, and why has it failed for years to pass from proposal to legislation?
Thoughts surrounding death are inconceivable, uncomfortable and generally avoided. The proposal, therefore, to grant everyone the right not only to knock on death’s door, but to, in fact, turn it’s handle and unlock the latch, feels like a final bestowal of human autonomy and dignity; I think I’d rather jump than fall, I know I’d like the choice. Nonetheless, the bill is undeniably indicative of both innovative and empathetic legislation that reflects our deepest human fears.
A campaign known as Dignity in Dying known cites that nearly 350 Britons have ended their own lives in the Swiss Institution Dignitas. The obvious derivable argument here becomes the regressive nature of our laws that currently exacerbate class disparities into our final dying breaths, affording autonomy in death only to the wealthy. If medical methods and ethical discourse surrounding the process are effective in Switzerland to the extent that Brits are making overseas journeys, a large part of the debate must surround accessibility and equality in death.
However, a powerful oppositional perspective, illustrated by the Care not Kill campaign, illuminates the reality of the terminally ill who oftentimes characterise themselves as burdens: financially, emotionally and socially. Particularly in a time of economic recession, there is a risk that the proposed legislation exposes and entices the most vulnerable sections of society into making decisions based on their circumstances rather than their genuine autonomy. This perhaps answers the question as to why the proposal has remained an ongoing parliamentary debate, and there is undoubtedly more ironing out of intricacies before it can be made into a reality, particularly surrounding motives of an assisted death.
Nonetheless, in a time where legislation across the Atlantic has succeeded in eroding female bodily autonomy through the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it feels both powerful and pertinent that UK legislation moves in a direction that both protects and enables body sovereignty and, quintessentially, the right to choose until the very end. The bill is set to be revisited in Parliament at the end of this month and I would argue it a testament to political human dignity should we see the proposal transition to policy.
Photo by Edewaa Foster on Unsplash
Related
Assisted Dying: Deliberation for Dignity
In April of this year, the Labour Party revived a proposal to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill individuals, stipulating that they must be over 18 and possess full capacity to make the decision. The right to end one’s life has been debated and contested in British politics since 1997 due to its inherent complexities, risks and vulnerabilities; in contrast, Swiss legislation on assisted dying has been in effect since 1942 and has, as of yet, stood the test of time.
So, what is the present public rhetoric over the bill, and why has it failed for years to pass from proposal to legislation?
Thoughts surrounding death are inconceivable, uncomfortable and generally avoided. The proposal, therefore, to grant everyone the right not only to knock on death’s door, but to, in fact, turn it’s handle and unlock the latch, feels like a final bestowal of human autonomy and dignity; I think I’d rather jump than fall, I know I’d like the choice. Nonetheless, the bill is undeniably indicative of both innovative and empathetic legislation that reflects our deepest human fears.
A campaign known as Dignity in Dying known cites that nearly 350 Britons have ended their own lives in the Swiss Institution Dignitas. The obvious derivable argument here becomes the regressive nature of our laws that currently exacerbate class disparities into our final dying breaths, affording autonomy in death only to the wealthy. If medical methods and ethical discourse surrounding the process are effective in Switzerland to the extent that Brits are making overseas journeys, a large part of the debate must surround accessibility and equality in death.
However, a powerful oppositional perspective, illustrated by the Care not Kill campaign, illuminates the reality of the terminally ill who oftentimes characterise themselves as burdens: financially, emotionally and socially. Particularly in a time of economic recession, there is a risk that the proposed legislation exposes and entices the most vulnerable sections of society into making decisions based on their circumstances rather than their genuine autonomy. This perhaps answers the question as to why the proposal has remained an ongoing parliamentary debate, and there is undoubtedly more ironing out of intricacies before it can be made into a reality, particularly surrounding motives of an assisted death.
Nonetheless, in a time where legislation across the Atlantic has succeeded in eroding female bodily autonomy through the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it feels both powerful and pertinent that UK legislation moves in a direction that both protects and enables body sovereignty and, quintessentially, the right to choose until the very end. The bill is set to be revisited in Parliament at the end of this month and I would argue it a testament to political human dignity should we see the proposal transition to policy.
Photo by Edewaa Foster on Unsplash
Share this:
Like this:
Related