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
I haven't followed this debate at all closely but, from a jurisprudence perspective, I'd suggest that a key consideration should be the obligations that are placed on carers.
If someone is so ill or disabled that they are unable themselves to do what is necessary to sustain their life, I would regard it as unreasonable for the law to both impose, under threat of punishment, an obligation on carers to keep them alive and, at the same time, forbid those carers to assist them to voluntarily end their own lives.
Fascinating piece, Thomas. Really got me thinking much more than I had previously. So many thanks for inspiring that!
My only question is that when the issue is about human suffering, almost in its entirety, how would you decouple anecdote from policy making here. You can't objectively measure a person's pain and their capacity to withstand it taking into accpunt their family situations etc. So what does evidence based policy look like?
Of course, humans aren't robots and, as I say in the piece, anecdotes (from both sides) have an important role in this debate. But in my opinion, anecdotes should take up something like 5-10% of such a parliamentary debate. Yesterday, they may have taken up over 50% of the debate and it was obvious that certain MPs regarded them as clinching evidence. This is very disproportional and not conducive to good policy.
I didn't watch the debate, but what you say is no surprise. What I notice about the assisted dying question is how easily people seem to find their position. The assumption that the compassionate position is obviously to support it because suffering is bad seems like a naive heuristic. But everything is vibes, isn't it. We need more philosophers who can tease out the nuances in these big questions that seem so simple to the incurious.
Interesting piece Tom. Sorry I am so late to reply but I wonder if the debate in the commons has become a piece of theatre as opposed to a meaningful consideration of the bill and therefore lends itself to emotional appeals to the audience - particularly given that it is now broadcast on its own channel.
This might not always be a bad thing. I would hope that MP’s might do better to come to their conclusions through reading around the subject, hearing from experts etc rather than being swayed by a piece of oratory from a fellow MP.
Thanks Jack! Yes, the broadcasting of the Commons is a problem and social media has made things worse; certain interventions seem to be motivated by the desire for a good social media clip. Perhaps they should think about ending the broadcasting of proceedings, like with courts! Speak soon, Tom
Excellent piece, I think you raise a very good point about the use of emotion in debate. I wonder how aware politicians are when they lean so heavily on feelings, if it's seen as a sensible strategy, or if it's largely subconscious.
Another troubling feature of the debate was the attempt at language policing (references to "assisted suicide" being described as offensive). The Bill undoubtedly provides for assisted suicide (hence it includes a clause providing that nothing done under the legislation constitutes an offence under the Suicide Act 1961). But the Bill's proponents (including Ms Leadbeater) take umbrage at references to assisted suicide. This matters, because poll evidence seems to be that the term "assisted dying" is widely misunderstood.
I agree about the predominance of anecdote and emotion in the debate. As I alluded to on Twitter at one point, hard cases make bad law. And some supporters of the bill have appeared impatient with any (valid) criticism, suggesting we should just get on and say yes because people are suffering and we can work out pettifogging detail afterwards. That’s not good enough.
But the problem isn’t with Parliament, at least not in any structural sense (although I still think a Private Member’s Bill without government support is an inadequate vehicle for this sort of change). The problem is with politicians and voters who put them there. They think these are winning arguments. If you have a sad enough story, you win. Parliament can only ever use the material that’s available.
The concern should not focus on the quality of the debate, as good or bad, as emotional or logical as it may be. The problem is with the issue itself. After governments abused their powers around the world since the "Pandemic" was declared with proven lies in 2020, it is clear that no such power as this bill proposes should be in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians.
Parliament obviously has no shame, and no one has been held responsible for the many abuses that were suffered by people from those with power around the world. I am guessing that this bill will breeze through because it has been predetermined to be necessary. The assistance to kill people will be made legal and that the discussion you mention is emotional first-rate theatre.
Never should life and death be in the hands of those in power as we all know well that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is a private matter, between individuals and their families, to support life at all stages, and God is the arbriter of life and death, not anyone else.
I haven't followed this debate at all closely but, from a jurisprudence perspective, I'd suggest that a key consideration should be the obligations that are placed on carers.
If someone is so ill or disabled that they are unable themselves to do what is necessary to sustain their life, I would regard it as unreasonable for the law to both impose, under threat of punishment, an obligation on carers to keep them alive and, at the same time, forbid those carers to assist them to voluntarily end their own lives.
I'm very glad I don't have to legislate on this highly complex issue!
Fascinating piece, Thomas. Really got me thinking much more than I had previously. So many thanks for inspiring that!
My only question is that when the issue is about human suffering, almost in its entirety, how would you decouple anecdote from policy making here. You can't objectively measure a person's pain and their capacity to withstand it taking into accpunt their family situations etc. So what does evidence based policy look like?
Thanks Tom - very kind of you!
Of course, humans aren't robots and, as I say in the piece, anecdotes (from both sides) have an important role in this debate. But in my opinion, anecdotes should take up something like 5-10% of such a parliamentary debate. Yesterday, they may have taken up over 50% of the debate and it was obvious that certain MPs regarded them as clinching evidence. This is very disproportional and not conducive to good policy.
I didn't watch the debate, but what you say is no surprise. What I notice about the assisted dying question is how easily people seem to find their position. The assumption that the compassionate position is obviously to support it because suffering is bad seems like a naive heuristic. But everything is vibes, isn't it. We need more philosophers who can tease out the nuances in these big questions that seem so simple to the incurious.
Interesting piece Tom. Sorry I am so late to reply but I wonder if the debate in the commons has become a piece of theatre as opposed to a meaningful consideration of the bill and therefore lends itself to emotional appeals to the audience - particularly given that it is now broadcast on its own channel.
This might not always be a bad thing. I would hope that MP’s might do better to come to their conclusions through reading around the subject, hearing from experts etc rather than being swayed by a piece of oratory from a fellow MP.
Anyway, keep up the good work Tom
Thanks Jack! Yes, the broadcasting of the Commons is a problem and social media has made things worse; certain interventions seem to be motivated by the desire for a good social media clip. Perhaps they should think about ending the broadcasting of proceedings, like with courts! Speak soon, Tom
Excellent piece, I think you raise a very good point about the use of emotion in debate. I wonder how aware politicians are when they lean so heavily on feelings, if it's seen as a sensible strategy, or if it's largely subconscious.
Thanks Georgia! Yes, I've been thinking about that too - such reasoning certainly gets through to some voters!
Another troubling feature of the debate was the attempt at language policing (references to "assisted suicide" being described as offensive). The Bill undoubtedly provides for assisted suicide (hence it includes a clause providing that nothing done under the legislation constitutes an offence under the Suicide Act 1961). But the Bill's proponents (including Ms Leadbeater) take umbrage at references to assisted suicide. This matters, because poll evidence seems to be that the term "assisted dying" is widely misunderstood.
Yes, that moment in the debate was very grating!
I agree about the predominance of anecdote and emotion in the debate. As I alluded to on Twitter at one point, hard cases make bad law. And some supporters of the bill have appeared impatient with any (valid) criticism, suggesting we should just get on and say yes because people are suffering and we can work out pettifogging detail afterwards. That’s not good enough.
But the problem isn’t with Parliament, at least not in any structural sense (although I still think a Private Member’s Bill without government support is an inadequate vehicle for this sort of change). The problem is with politicians and voters who put them there. They think these are winning arguments. If you have a sad enough story, you win. Parliament can only ever use the material that’s available.
Yes - I'm a fan of Parliament as an institution! But this generation of politicians? Not so much.
The concern should not focus on the quality of the debate, as good or bad, as emotional or logical as it may be. The problem is with the issue itself. After governments abused their powers around the world since the "Pandemic" was declared with proven lies in 2020, it is clear that no such power as this bill proposes should be in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians.
Parliament obviously has no shame, and no one has been held responsible for the many abuses that were suffered by people from those with power around the world. I am guessing that this bill will breeze through because it has been predetermined to be necessary. The assistance to kill people will be made legal and that the discussion you mention is emotional first-rate theatre.
Never should life and death be in the hands of those in power as we all know well that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is a private matter, between individuals and their families, to support life at all stages, and God is the arbriter of life and death, not anyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymi3umIo-sM
George Bernard Shaw: There are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill