Starmer has blundered on assisted dying – it must not pass

I have always had sympathy for the arguments. But this is no way to bring in a change of such magnitude

Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Like a lot of people, I agree with individuals making their own decisions about their own lives. I agree with individual autonomy. I agree the state should have as limited a role in our lives consistent with a fair society where everyone is given the opportunity to, in the parlance of young people, “live their best lives”. The strength of a person’s character is all that should matter.
I also agree that the opinions or beliefs of one person should only be of limited consequence – in strictly defined circumstances – to those who may think differently. What I think about abortion does not trump a woman’s right to make her own decisions. What I think about faith should not particularly matter to people of faith, as long as they offer me – an atheist – the same respect.
I believe this makes me a liberal in the true sense of the word, not the morally righteous “progressive” sense, a word I wish could be dropped from the political lexicon. I am a firm proponent of Isaiah Berlin’s concepts of “negative liberty” (freedom from interference) and “positive liberty” (freedom to do). Both are essential to a passably good society.
Given all this, when it came to assisted dying I thought I would know my own mind sufficiently well to come to a firm conclusion. As a proponent of negative freedom, if someone of sound mind who is at the very end of their time on earth wants to end their life because of intolerable suffering, well, who am I to stand in their way?
At its heart, this is the argument Labour MP Kim Leadbeater makes in her private members’ bill which Parliament will vote on at the end of the week.
Her arguments are powerful. Death, where possible, should be dignified. Not just for the individual, but for those around them.
If we are to make assisted dying legal, then controls should be immutable. Leadbeater insists that her bill guarantees that assisted death will only be possible in strictly defined circumstances that obviate “slippery slope” dangers.
The public should be broadly supportive. Most polls suggest they are, by a substantial margin. Last month IPSOS revealed that “a majority of the UK public continue to believe it should be legal for a doctor to assist a patient aged 18 or older in ending their life”. Just 16 per cent think it should not be legal.
Given all this strong evidence, why then do I believe that MPs should vote against Leadbeater’s bill when it comes before them?
My reasons are political and practical in a debate that is often overwrought with understandable emotion. I will leave moral judgements on the sanctity of life to others better qualified than I. Suffice to say the argument from leaders of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh faiths that it is impossible to discern whether someone has been coerced into a decision to end their life is not easily discarded.
At its simplest, a private members bill (PMB) is the wrong route to a change of such significance. That Keir Starmer has allowed it cements his reputation for being very poor at politics (a rather disturbing weakness for the Prime Minister of the country). His pledge to Esther Ranzen before the election that he would make time for a debate and vote on the issue should never have been via such a thin mechanism.
First it leaves it to campaigners for and against to make the case, and to one individual (in this instance someone without a long track record in the subject) to be the face of the pro lobby.
The debate by design becomes binary – with the whiff of the amateur – when it should be nuanced, drawing on the expertise of the professional, such as those with deep knowledge of hospice care. MPs are left scrabbling with Google to find out as much as they can. Before the election Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said he wanted to throw open his department so that politicians and all concerned parties could see the evidence. Nothing of such substance has happened.Second, PMBs are very poor ways to legislate. MPs will be given just five hours to debate such a momentous change on Parliament’s most desolate day – Friday – when minds are already turning to the weekend and the scrutiny of the news cycle is waning.
As the Hansard Society says of PMBs: “The lack of programming [government support] and absence of time limits on speeches facilitate filibustering rather than effective debate and scrutiny.” Procedural tricks are commonplace.
Starmer, who is sympathetic to assisted dying, should have taken the lead, not cowered behind the “conscience vote” defence. He should have set up a judge-led inquiry into assisted dying, palliative care and whether a “dignified death” really means the state being able to sanction the taking of someone’s life.
It could have been given a one year timeframe to report, the evidence base then becoming the foundation of a legislative proposal backed by the government and given proper time in Parliament. 
The final vote could still be a free vote, as it was in 2008 with significant parts of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
Instead we are left with a situation where the elected government is remaining “neutral” on the issue. Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, told all government ministers, including the Cabinet, they “should not take part in the public debate”. Case was following protocol, put in a ridiculous position by his boss, the PM.
Of course, the position has not held, making Number 10 look weak. If the bill on assisted dying were to pass, we know that the two lead departments concerned with its implementation – health and justice – are headed by ministers who do not agree with the policy.
Streeting has said that he is “concerned about the risk of people being coerced into taking their own lives sooner than they would have liked” and that palliative care is “not where it needs to be”.Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, wrote to her constituents this weekend saying that assisted suicide would fundamentally change the relationship between the state and individuals. “Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign”.
These are arguments of substance that cannot be settled by a brief debate and a second division process. Just as with winter payments for pensioners and inheritance tax for farmers, the Labour government is allowing policy to be bundled through Parliament with little thought of the consequences. On assisted dying, MPs are dealing with people’s lives. We all deserve better.
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email