The Times newspaper has this week devoted two whole pages and an editorial to the pro-assisted suicide cause
just as Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) is launching
its latest propaganda barrage on parliament with the mailing of a new booklet to all MPs and Peers.

The Times initially adopted
a campaigning stance in support of legalising assisted suicide with an editorial
titled “Life and Death” at the time of the unsuccessful
Falconer amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill back in 2009. Like the BBC it has been unbalanced in its coverage
of the issue ever since. The pro-euthanasia lobby is indeed fortunate to have such
a powerful press office assisting it.

DID is now escalating
the push for a change in the law so that (in its own words) “terminally ill, mentally
competent adults can have the choice of an assisted death” – but with the
key terms “terminally ill”, “mentally competent”, “adult” and “assisted death” left
conveniently undefined.

They are doing this in
the lead up to the publication of the report from Lord Falconer’s sham commission on assisted suicide
due out this autumn, which on the basis of the committee’s composition (nine of its twelve members are outspoken enthusiasts
for decriminalisation) will recommend “legalisation with safeguards”. Expect DID
to have the bill already drafted.

DID’s aim is to produce a slight opening of the
door that can then be incrementally widened with subsequent human rights
legislation – because as they are well aware, their key arguments (compassion
and autonomy) apply also to children, mentally incompetent adults and those who
are disabled or chronically ill. This is just the sort of extension that has already
been observed in the Netherlands.

Baroness Finlay, professor
of palliative medicine in Cardiff, has tonight published a riposte, “’Safeguards’ will not make assisted suicide acceptable”,
in which she makes the following points:

“Those campaigning for assisted suicide make
it all sound so easy: safeguards, no investigation of those who assist and an assumption
that everyone involved acts from the finest of motives.”

“But the law has to protect us all from those
who do not necessarily have the best motives…So why are the so-called “safeguards”
proposed by campaigners unsafe? First, they assume that one can define precisely
who is terminally ill: one cannot. Doctors know only too well of misdiagnoses and
prognoses that are wrong by months or years. Second, coercive influences on a person
are difficult to detect. Third, doctors and nurses often have a big influence on
a patient…”

“When assisted suicide is investigated, those
who stand to inherit should be rigorously examined if they are complicit in the
death… We are all interconnected. The actions of one person affect others. Assisting
suicide is a step too far; personal gain too easily masquerades as compassion.”

The current law, through
the penalties it holds in reserve, provides a strong deterrent to abuse and exploitation,
whilst allowing both prosecutors and judges discretion in bringing prosecutions
and in passing sentences. This is the right balance. It is working well and does
not need fixing.

The set of prosecution
criteria produced by the Director of Public Prosecutions in response to the Debbie
Purdy judgement are not perfect in that they provide a loophole for those who plead
that their actions, in assisting someone else to kill themselves, were “wholly motivated
by compassion” – words which have little meaning in law and are also difficult
to apply given that the key witness – the victim – is dead.

In fact, as argued by
Francis Bennion, retired Parliamentary Counsel, in a letter to the Times well worthy of study, these
prosecution guidelines actually in this way change the law.

However, were we to legislate
to decriminalise assisted suicide on any grounds at all we would soon see the escalating
numbers of cases that we are seeing now in Oregon and the Netherlands. Britain has
seen a total of 150 people go to the Dignitas facility
in Zurich to end their lives over ten years – on average about ten a year.

However with an Oregon
or Netherlands type law (both defended by DID) we would, according to the 2005 House of Lords Select Committee Report, have
650 and 13,000 British deaths annually.

We do not need a change
in the law – but we do need to ensure that all cases of assisted suicide do
continue to be fully investigated both to ensure that potential abusers are deterred
and that all appropriate prosecutions are brought. This will mean that “assisters”
will have to be questioned by the police, but that is a small price to pay to ensure
that others are protected.

In order to ensure that
vulnerable people – those who are elderly, disabled, depressed or sick –
are adequately protected it means that a small number of people who desperately
wish help to end their lives will not be able to do it and that others will not
be able to help them without the risk of prosecution.

That is part of living
in a democratic society. Autonomy is not absolute. All laws limit autonomy in some
way because laws are there to protect the vulnerable, not to give liberties to the
determined. That is why we have speed limits and breath tests – despite the
fact that some people think they can drive safely over either limit.

The current law has a
stern face but a kind heart. It does not need changing. It is a shame that the current
editors of the Times seem not to recognise that.

Dr Peter Saunders is a former general surgeon and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. This article has been cross-posted from his blog, Christian Medical Comment