Your analogy with trans/gender and the pitfalls of treating a complex matter as 'the next big progressive cause' is very good. And like there, importantly, even if opponents are coming from different starting places, there are numerous specific cases they can agree are bad.
I'm pretty sceptical that any law can be made watertight - at least so long as we are in the ECHR, which is likely to lead courts to strike down exceptions. But if I were to be won over, it would probably be by establishing something like the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Agency to oversee it, a genuinely cross-spectrum Royal Commission to design it, and then - as you say - lots of consultation and scrutiny to get it right.
The analogy with the trans/gender issue is misleading. There was extensive and lengthy consultation in the Scottish Parliament on the Gender Recognition Bill, and support from MSPs of all parties. It was the Westminster government and Parliament which intervened to block the bill, totally ignoring the wishes of the Scottish Parliament and the consultation which had already taken place.
There is an parallel bill on assisted dying now being considered by Holyrood. If the Scottish bill passes and the Westminster bill falls, will we again see the Westminster government stepping in to overrule the will of the Scottish Parliament and people?
But at the end of the day in both cases it's for a tiny number of people... Either a small number of people who just want to be able to use a toilet, or a small number of people who are currently in a hospital toilet with a bag over their head just needing it to stop. (actual example from my life, not random hyperbole).
Not sure the 'two tier system' argument holds water. It presupposes that permitting assisted suicide is good. If in fact, it is bad (e.g. due to poor incentives as you've argued) then it reduces to "rich people use their money to circumvent law; create bad incentives for others in the process". Analogous to "British law creates a two tier system where only the wealthy can travel abroad to legally pay for sex/use highly addictive drugs/etc".
Other countries will do what they do; that they have done something does not imply it is good. As you've said, what we can do is learn from the empirical evidence as to whether it is good. In this case we learn that (a) the slippery slope is real, and (b) it is difficult/not proven to be possible to make assisted suicide safe.
I’m in exactly the same boat. I am very alarmed by the unintended consequences we could be facing with any assisted dying legislation, and I am bristling already at the implied “Oh, so you just think people should SUFFER?” if you don’t support the “pro” campaign.
Systems thinking and consequence modelling seems to be in short supply these days.
Not in the UK so I don’t know much about the specifics (other than concern that a national health system that’s under a lot of stress might be motivated to err on the side of saving money), but I’d be particularly concerned how it deals with people seeking assisted dying to deal with mental illness, which is, after all, a kind of suffering but can be recovered from if the person doesn’t die first. I understand there are/have been particularly long waits for mental health treatment at NHS?
I think I'm with Wes Streeting on this one. Fix the NHS first, and *then* maybe revisit this idea.
That's an argument for never doing it. The NHS will never be fixed.
Your analogy with trans/gender and the pitfalls of treating a complex matter as 'the next big progressive cause' is very good. And like there, importantly, even if opponents are coming from different starting places, there are numerous specific cases they can agree are bad.
I'm pretty sceptical that any law can be made watertight - at least so long as we are in the ECHR, which is likely to lead courts to strike down exceptions. But if I were to be won over, it would probably be by establishing something like the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Agency to oversee it, a genuinely cross-spectrum Royal Commission to design it, and then - as you say - lots of consultation and scrutiny to get it right.
The analogy with the trans/gender issue is misleading. There was extensive and lengthy consultation in the Scottish Parliament on the Gender Recognition Bill, and support from MSPs of all parties. It was the Westminster government and Parliament which intervened to block the bill, totally ignoring the wishes of the Scottish Parliament and the consultation which had already taken place.
There is an parallel bill on assisted dying now being considered by Holyrood. If the Scottish bill passes and the Westminster bill falls, will we again see the Westminster government stepping in to overrule the will of the Scottish Parliament and people?
But at the end of the day in both cases it's for a tiny number of people... Either a small number of people who just want to be able to use a toilet, or a small number of people who are currently in a hospital toilet with a bag over their head just needing it to stop. (actual example from my life, not random hyperbole).
Thanks for writing this.
Not sure the 'two tier system' argument holds water. It presupposes that permitting assisted suicide is good. If in fact, it is bad (e.g. due to poor incentives as you've argued) then it reduces to "rich people use their money to circumvent law; create bad incentives for others in the process". Analogous to "British law creates a two tier system where only the wealthy can travel abroad to legally pay for sex/use highly addictive drugs/etc".
Other countries will do what they do; that they have done something does not imply it is good. As you've said, what we can do is learn from the empirical evidence as to whether it is good. In this case we learn that (a) the slippery slope is real, and (b) it is difficult/not proven to be possible to make assisted suicide safe.
I’m in exactly the same boat. I am very alarmed by the unintended consequences we could be facing with any assisted dying legislation, and I am bristling already at the implied “Oh, so you just think people should SUFFER?” if you don’t support the “pro” campaign.
Systems thinking and consequence modelling seems to be in short supply these days.
Not in the UK so I don’t know much about the specifics (other than concern that a national health system that’s under a lot of stress might be motivated to err on the side of saving money), but I’d be particularly concerned how it deals with people seeking assisted dying to deal with mental illness, which is, after all, a kind of suffering but can be recovered from if the person doesn’t die first. I understand there are/have been particularly long waits for mental health treatment at NHS?