Is Parliament capable of debating assisted dying?

Today, the UK House of Commons debated and voted in favour of the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. There is a long way to go before the Bill becomes law – it must pass the committee stage, House of Lords and a final Commons vote – yet its prospects now appear strong. I am torn. For years, I was in favour of such a reform – the needless suffering of the terminally ill seems inhumane – yet have got cold feet. Primarily, this reflects developments in countries such as Canada, writers such as Yuan Yi Zhu highlighting egregious uses of this reform. Despite these reservations, I am not sure I would have been able to vote against the Bill and would probably have abstained. Were I facing a painful death, I would go to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. How could I deny this right to others?

Of course, these issues have been discussed extensively and my thoughts would add little to this debate. Yet I am interested in something more specific: the ability of Parliament to debate such a topic. This problem is key. In liberal democracies, parliamentarians are supposed to debate complicated issues which involve trade-offs and require the ability to decouple one’s emotions from the needs of the nation. Few would call for a referendum on assisted dying, worrying about the ability of voters to decide such a complex matter.

But prior to today’s second reading, the quality of debate has concerned me. Specifically, I have been worried by the predominance of anecdote and emotion. Welcoming the debate, Keir Starmer cited a promise to Dame Esther Rantzen, a terminally ill celebrity. As many commented, this is scarcely a basis for good policy. This week, a Labour MP justified his opposition to the Bill with this X post,

Such justifications are tempting. Like no other issue, assisted dying involves tales of suffering and vulnerability and such stories hit one viscerally. Certainly, anecdotes are an important form of evidence and a balanced judgement should take stories (from both sides) into account.

But stories should not lead one’s judgement; they are parts of packages which normally comprise superior forms of evidence. The tendency to be led by anecdotes is a hallmark of the uncultivated mind; the educated attempt to review competing explanations dispassionately and come to balanced conclusions. Decoupling, the ability to assess concepts independently, is related to this. It is essential that MPs are able to do these things and, if the current generation has difficulty doing so, we are in trouble.

In today’s debate, the opening remarks of Kim Leadbeater (the Labour MP who presented the Bill) did not inspire confidence. Leadbeater is passionate and her commitment to a civilized debate should be commended, yet her speech was dominated by emotive and graphic anecdotes. A little later, Kit Malthouse, a Conservative MP and co-sponsor of the Bill, opened his speech with very weak remarks,

‘I am married to a Canadian and… they love their children just as much as we do. The idea that the Canadians… care little for their relatives, or indeed for the wider society in which they live, is frankly offensive… Even if we think there will be an impact [on the NHS], are people seriously telling me that my death, my agony, is too much for the NHS to have time for, or too much hassle?’

This is not the reasoning of a cultivated mind. Marriage does not provide special insight into the politics of another country and the remark about love for one’s children is a strawman. Comments about the NHS are emotional and do not touch the complicated questions of resources and trade-offs which underpin health policy.

Alas, the speeches of Leadbeater and Malthouse were flanked by similar contributions. A series of interventions led with personal experiences of the issue and some did not even bother to engage with policy issues. Emotion played too great a role. Peter Bedford (Conservative, Mid Leicestershire) reported that his grandmother’s illness had convinced him ‘there and then’ of the case for assisted dying. Prior to thanking Leadbeater (‘an absolute gem!’) for her contribution, Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour, Gower) told the chamber that she ‘had a packet of tissues and… made swift work of them’. I could give many other examples and urge readers to watch (or read) the debate.

Of course, some contributions were stronger. Parliament continues to have wise and impressive figures and, prior to the debate, I read many considered arguments for supporting (or not) the Bill. During the debate, I heard important points about the duties of the legislator, the meaning of a vote at the second reading and judicial implications (though these could have been more prominent and few MPs cautioned against anecdote and emotion). Certainly, Parliament remains a much better way to decide upon these issues than by referendum.

Yet such trends are worrying and suggest a decline in the quality of parliamentary debate. I am not aware of relevant studies – if you know of any, please tell me in the comments – but I suspect that this is indeed the case. From my reading of parliamentary history, the debates of recent centuries were more sober and rigorous, today’s parliamentarians not seeming the equal of predecessors.

Of course, this reflects societal trends. Recent decades have been notable for their self-indulgent and emotional character – as long ago as the 1970s, Christopher Lasch railed against this – and recent years have seen the rise of identity politics. Arguably, education has become less rigorous, fewer having the ability to think analytically and engage in decoupling.

At the same time, political culture has become less elitist. Once the preserve of the few, ideology has diffused throughout society, entailing a simplification and cheapening of politics. Increasingly, politics is consumed on social media, creating well-known problems. To a great extent, the challenge is not the quality of our politicians, but the kind of people they must address. Popular discussion of assisted dying is dominated by anecdotes which poorly decouple relevant issues. To communicate with such voters, MPs must engage with them on their terms.

Yet even granting these points, the quality of today’s debate remains deeply concerning. It is not as if few people in our society can think in dispassionate and analytic terms. Looking at social media, one observes many people who are disturbed by the tendency of MPs to reason emotionally and, at all levels of society, one encounters people who could do better. Of course, this matters desperately. As many remarked today, the business of Parliament is indispensable and, in this case, concerned a matter of life and death.

If MPs are unequal to this task, why are they in Parliament?

---

If you enjoyed reading this, do think about subscribing! Subscription is free – all it means is that you’ll receive a weekly email. But every new subscriber makes me very happy 😊 😊 😊