Aaaaaaaand so the latest attempt to get assisted dying of some sort onto the statute books in the UK has bitten the dust. I can’t say I’m surprised. Watching the debate in the Commons – I didn’t watch it all, but I did watch a fair chunk of it – it was striking just how familiar the arguments produced by both sides were. It’s hard to shake the feeling that, just as is the case with the journals, the public debate on assisted dying has become a war of attrition: noone has much new to say, and in the absence of that, it’s simply a matter of building up the numbers (or grinding down the opposition). The Nos didn’t win today’s Parliamentary debate because of any dazzling insight; the Ayes didn’t lose it because their speakers were measurably less impressive than their opponents’. If the law does change in the UK, I’d wager that it’ll be because of demographic brute force rather than intellectual fireworks.
(Every now and again I hear a rumour of someone having come up with a new approach to assisted dying debates… but every now and again I hear all kinds of rumours. I live in hope/ fear: delete as applicable.)
Still, I think it’s worth spending a little time on one of the objections that’s been raised over the last couple of days to this Bill in particular; it’s an objection that was raised by Canon Peter Holliday, the Chief Executive of a hospice in Lichfield:
In an interview with the Church of England, Canon Holliday said: “If there is no possibility within the final legislation for hospices to opt out of being a part of what is effectively assisted suicide, then there is nervousness about where our funding might be found in the future.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.