Is the Archbishop crying ‘Wolf!’ over assisted dying?
Justin Welby says it is dangerous but is the Archbishop crying ‘Wolf!’ over assisted dying?
This Writer doesn’t think so. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Welby has made many mistakes in the past but I think he’s right to highlight concerns about this on the day the Assisted Dying Bill is first debated in the House of Commons.
Welby told the BBC he believes legalising assisted dying
“opens the way to it broadening out, such that people who are not in that situation [terminally ill] asking for this, or feeling pressured to ask for it”.
He said he had noted a marked degradation in his lifetime of the idea that “everyone, however useful they are, is of equal worth to society”. He said the disabled, ill and elderly were often overlooked, in a way that would have an impact on whether they might access assisted dying.
He said he did not want people to feel guilty for having such thoughts and added he was worried people would feel compelled to ask to die if they felt like a burden – an idea he said was wrong.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP introducing the assisted dying bill to Parliament, has told the BBC she disagrees with the archbishop’s “slippery slope” argument, saying the proposal is for people who are terminally ill and suffering at the end of their life.
The article states that polling has consistently shown 60-75 per cent of the British public supports assisted dying for people who are terminally ill and suffering great pain at the end of their lives.
This is true – to a certain extent. Here’s YouGov:
When it comes to those suffering from painful and incurable – but not terminal – diseases, support for allowing assisted suicide drops to 45% – although this is still higher than opposition, at 26%https://t.co/OM3HHV8I5b pic.twitter.com/kf4jVsZdmt
— YouGov (@YouGov) October 16, 2024
Welby’s concern is “mission creep” – that helping terminally-ill people to die will change into helping anybody die who asks for it because they feel pressured into it. This is an entirely legitimate concern, especially in a society that does not value people with long-term, debilitating illnesses and/or disabilities.
It is possible for the Bill to legislate against this possibility – but it cannot ensure that future law-makers won’t change it to allow exactly what Welby fears.
And how do you feel about it? If you have – or if you can imagine you have – a relative or close friend with a non-terminal illness that causes them a great deal of pain, would you want them to seek assistance in dying, in order to save you and others the physical, emotional and financial burden of looking after them?
Or would you want to keep your valued and cherished companion with you, knowing that there is no telling what good fortune the future may bring?
What would you do?
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
“would you want them to seek assistance in dying, in order to save you and others the physical, emotional and financial burden of looking after them?
Or would you want to keep your valued and cherished companion with you, knowing that there is no telling what good fortune the future may bring?”
This is a selfish and prejudiced false dichotomy. Both options are based on what you want, not what your friend wants – that is how it is selfish. The only reasons you give for the assisted dying choice are selfish and mean. The only reasons you give for the non-assisted dying choice are couched in positive terms “valued”, “cherished” and “good fortune” – that is how it is prejudiced. Any reasonable person would want their friend to have the freedom to make their own informed choice yet you failed to include this option – that is how it is a false dichotomy.
The question was for people who are not ill but may be asked to help somebody who is ill – but not terminally so – to die. I deliberately wrote it the way I did in order to put the starkest contrast in front of readers, because that is how others will see it. And there is no reason for them not to see it that way.
This is very difficult for me. I have thought long and hard about it and STILL cannot come to a settled opinion. On the one hand I had relatives who were terminally ill and had great pain, but were then moved to a hospice where the pain was properly managed. This could mean that those unable to access this kind of care would be accessing assisted dying instead. This would simply plug a hole in the care system and ‘save money’ No government would seek to address a situation like that.
Likewise I am mindful of other situations of ‘mission creep’ When TASERs were legalised it was specifically to prevent firearms officers shooting dead those who were armed with knives and swords. It was legalised ONLY for such circumstances. Now, a few decades on, police are using them instead of batons and even to stop criminals from escaping – obviously people have died from this widespread use when they weren’t armed nor threatening in some instances. I’m also mindful of another situation, not yet brought up, of an old unfair dismissal case in the NHS. The maternity nurse in question had worked as a theatre nurse during sections etc. She had stated that, due to her beliefs, she could not participate in carrying out terminations. This arrangement was fine for a number of years but then she was told if she continued to refuse to participate she would have her position terminated. IIRC she lost her case. So what will happen to the people we ask to carry out such duties??