My Trip to the House of Commons and The Assisted Dying Bill

11/29/2024

My Trip to the House of Commons and The Assisted Dying Bill

Read Now

First off, let me start by saying that I am decidedly NOT a journalist. The following is simply my personal observations and opinions as I continue to learn more about life in the UK and how it all works.

(AND...For the record, the official title of the bill is the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.)

A month or so ago it was brought to my attention that the UK government is considering a bill that would make assisted dying legal. This struck me as incredibly odd simply because I never thought I’d live to see the day when something would be considered. If Caitlin Doughty (and the wider Order of the Good Death community) has taught me anything, it’s that we as a society are terrified of death and – more importantly – talking about death. I know that the UK is not as inherently Christian as the United States, but even still…this seemed like a huge leap to undertake and I incorrectly assumed that the bill would be dead on arrival (pun intended).

In the consequent weeks since first hearing about it, I have learned that several other countries already have laws on asssited dying/assisted suicide/euthenasia (more on the issue of word choice later) including Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and Austria. Not to mention Oregon in the fricken United States! (If it were to be anywhere, it would be Oregon.)

I then found out that the second reading of the bill was to take place on November 29th and that one could attend the debate. Given that I was going to be in the general direction of London, anyway, for a lovely Friends-Giving party, I figured I should go and check it out.

On the morning of Friday, November 29th I awoke to find I had missed my alarm. I’d wanted to get up early so I could be in line as soon as possible, assuming that the debate would be well-attended. That and the fact that I had put in a rather poor night’s sleep, I considered not going. But the thrill of adventure plus the fear of missing out got me up and out the door.

And I’m so glad that I went! First and foremost, The Palace of Westminster is incredibly beautiful and (as the name suggests) a palace. After going through security, you enter into this massive receiving hall that’s lined with stained glass windows and gorgeous paintings. Immediately, you feel small and overtaken by the majesty and history.

Furthermore, it was insanely interesting to A) be a part of a piece of history and B) to just be there in the room where it happens (Hamilton reference intended). Getting to actually hear the back and forth discussion and see first hand how the government in this system works, especially compared to back home, was fascinating. Because I was running late, I didn’t stop for breakfast so I really only stuck around for three of the five hours, but I grabbed lunch in the building and was onsite when the results of the vote was announced.

That being said, here are some of my key takeaways, questions, and observations from the experience. Again: not a journalist. I failed to get everyone’s name and failed to be totally objective. Please don’t look at this and say, “I got my information from Deanna!” I am not a reputable news source, just a young lady with a blog. (I have some links below to actual news outlets so go check them out and support journalists!)

The bill (in short)

A bill similar to this was raised back in 2015 but was ultimately rejected. Since then, countries such as Canada and Austria have enacted similar bills into law.
It would allow adults (18 or older) who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness AND have a prognosis of less than six months to live to seek the legal aid of a doctor or medical practitioner (more on that later) who could give them access to life-ending drugs.
Said drugs would need to be administered by the patient themselves, not by a doctor, medical practitioner, or anyone else. The patient must be the one to ultimately “do the deed”.
Wording is incredibly important, similar to bills and laws having to do with abortion. Those in favor will use terms such as “assisted dying” rather than “assisted suicide.” The opposition is quick to use the latter term as well as “kill”, etc.
Members of Parliament (especially those in favor) are also keen not to call it euthanasia, but this has less to do with the connotation of that word and more to do with the simple fact that euthanasia occurs when a doctor administers the drug. Because this specific bill does not allow for a doctor to administer the drug, this cannot be considered euthanasia.
Some countries do allow for euthanasia, and it should be noted that, generally speaking, every country’s (or state’s) laws are somewhat different.
This is NOT a party issue as several MPs crossed party lines with their views.
“Chronic illness” is different from “terminal illness”. The former means that there is likely no cure and the patient will die with it but they are not necessarily dying from it (i.e. diabetes, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, etc.) and the latter means that the patient is actively dying from the ailment (advanced cancer, end-stage renal disease, heart failure, etc.)

Observations/Learning about parliament/Misc.

Everyone is so polite (but is it politeness or just cordiality?) The MPs are always thanking each other for interventions and “giving way”.

Do MPs already know which direction they’re going to vote? Is this debate really for those who are on the fence (if there are any?) or for the constituents who voted for them. Could we have just skipped the whole debate and gone right into voting? How much of this is just pomp?
Danny Kruger headed up the opposition and had a great quote, “I’m not giving way, I’m afraid.” So. Very. British.
MPs will rise after someone is done speaking and this is to signal that they have something to add to the discussion. However, they should have already signed up to speak and the Speaker will call on them when it’s their turn. So…is the whole rising bit just more pomp?
The two main parties are Labour which tends to be more liberal leaning and the Unionist Party which tends to be more conservative.
Today’s bill was spearheaded by Kim Leadbeater who is a member of the Labour Party and has a fantastic Yorkshire dialect (just like Jodie Whittaker!)
The Labour Party has a HUGE majority in the House of Commons.
The party that holds the majority (in this case, the Labour Party) is called the “government” and everyone else is called the “opposition”.
The government is seated to the right of the Speaker and the opposition is seated to the left (generally).
When looking down at the two sides, you can see that almost all the people from the opposition were dressed in navy blue or black while those from the government were dressed in brighter colors. Is this because one side is in favor of the bill and thus wearing happy colors while the other is against the bill and thus more somber OR is this a reflection of the Labour party’s more diverse makeup and liberal leaning versus the Unionists more conservative leanings? (Is the choice of wardrobe similar to how RBG would wear a certain collar to signify if she dissented?)
The Speaker kept switching out and different people took their place. At one point, someone was referred to the Deputy Speaker so I’m assuming that was this person’s title but then someone else came in.
Maybe three dozen microphones hang down from the ceiling over the MPs and when you are called to speak, the one that’s closest to you gets turned on. But it’s just the one mic so if you turn away from it, we can’t hear you. A few times, The Speaker (or whoever was sitting in for The Speaker) had to remind MPs to face forward so that their mic would catch them.
People seated in the gallery are not allowed to show any support or opposition for what is being said. You can nod or shake your head but anything verbal will get you excused from the proceedings, as happened with the woman sitting in front of me who started applauding after someone from the opposition gave a rousing speech.

Let’s talk palliative care (taking care of someone who has a terminal illness or is dying)

This was a HUGE talking point for both sides, second only to talks on coercion.

The opposition argued that we don’t need this bill if we put more resources into palliative care, and the government argued that even with great palliative care, people can still suffer.
Regardless of how people feel about this particular bill, several people pointed out that because of the bill’s existence and its subsequent debates, there have been so many fantastic discussions on palliative care, an issue that’s needed attention for some time.

The following are pros and cons of issue of assisted death/assisted suicide (and, specifically looking at the issue now), not on the bill itself.

Cons (as stated by the opposition)

The line between terminal illness and disability is blurred and that can be dangerous. Those who are differently abled will be affected by this more than anyone else.
There are moral issues on who can “play God” and who gets to decide who lives and who dies.
The NHS is already overwhelmed and asking doctors to do more is not doable. We should be focused on fixing the NHS rather than expecting more from them.
“Suicide” is contagious.
There is the HUGE issue of coercion (not just from outside forces but self-coercion and feelings that you are a burden and should just die).
People who are in abusive relationships (whether romantically or even with their physician) will be manipulated into thinking that this is what they want.
Even with these drugs, a “dignified” and painless death are not guaranteed. People have been known to vomit or have a negative reaction to the drug, causing even more pain.
Medicine and diagnosis are not an exact science. Doctors do the best they can with what they have, but we can never be 100% sure that someone will not recover or have a fulfilling life even with a terminal illness.

Pros (as stated by the government)

This bill will allow for patients to choose how they die and (hopefully) die with dignity rather than suffering in pain.
Terminally ill patients and those who are suffering end their own lives all the time – whether parliament likes it or not. This bill would allow them to do it in a safe and dignified manner.
Making it legal would also safeguard family members and friends who wish to help (protecting them from scrutiny or prosecution.)
There is no way we can stop all coercion and everything must be taken on a case-by-case basis.
The government argues that palliative care and assisted dying go hand-in-hand. They are not in opposition to one another. Assisted dying comes under the umbrella term of palliative care and can be an option for those suffering. Assisted dying would not be the first choice presented to someone but, rather, a last resort if necessary and wanted.
We as a society do not want to talk about death. This bill makes us talk about it and become more comfortable with discussions on how one wants to die.

Questions/parts of the bill

Is the bill ready?
Define “medical practitioner”. The bill allows for a medical practitioner to aid a patient, and the government stated that term is a synonym for “doctor”, but the opposition argued that the wording was too vague. “A dentist is a medical practitioner! Can a dentist provide a patient with the drugs?”
Is there significance to the six month prognosis? (See the final point in the Cons section.)
What safeguards are there for people who are nonverbal?
How does the bill compare to laws on this issue? (Oregon, Switzerland, etc.)
Several MPs stated that they were not against assisted dying/suicide but that they just didn’t like this bill.
In regards to that, one gentleman remarked that this is an important issue and even if it doesn’t get passed today, parliament cannot wait another 10 years to discuss it again.

Quotes

“Death is not romantic.” – Kilt Malthouse (in favor)
“This is not easy. Let’s acknowledge that.” - Tonia Antoniazzi, a lovely Welsh lady (in favor)
“If this is a right that we should be proud to pass, then why are we denying it to children?” (didn’t catch name, opposition)
“This bill is about despair, and I’m voting for hope.” (didn’t catch name, opposition)
“This is not life or death. This is death or death.” – Peter Prinsley (in favor)
“The Second Reading is a point of principle, not a point of conclusion.” – Sir David Davis

Personal views/opinions

While going through security, they opened my bag, pulled out my Exit Stage Riley sweatshirt, and held it up. As the gentleman read the words across the front and back, I smiled with an air of false coyness and said, “Oh, THAT? That’s just from a play that I wrote!” He looked me dead in the eyes and replied, “I just need to make sure you’re not bringing in anything in favor or against the bill.” I immediately stopped smiling. DUH, Deanna. He's not interested in your play.

Several people had very personal and gut-wrenching stories (on both sides of the issue). Honestly, it eventually became pointless to bring these up. It just further drives home the point that the issue is very personal and needs to be taken case by case.
One MP claimed that taking too much morphine won’t kill you…which is not true. His argument is that we don’t need this bill because we can just give patients morphine and that will solve the problem.
After a while, it just felt like everyone (especially in opposition) were just saying the same thing over and over again, raising the same issues that had already been raised: coercion, overwhelming the NHS, those who are differently abled, gut-wrenching stories about someone who was given six months to live and then went on to live a long life, etc.
There was a lot of discussion/questions on the point of a Second Reading. Many of those in favor were quick to say that if there are things you don’t like about the bill but support the idea behind it, then you can vote in favor of it now and allow us to work out the kinks. The final decision comes at the next reading. The opposition kept saying (of course) that the bill was simply too awful to even proceed further. There seemed to be some disconnect over whether the MPs were debating the bill itself or the issue of assisted dying as a whole.
In regards to this, Layla Moran had a great quote, “If there is no version of the bill that you could vote for, then be honest about that.” How much of the opposition’s dislike of the bill is legitimate and how much of it is simply political (“We can’t let the other guy win!” “I just don’t want to deal with this issue.”)
I am not a historian or a medical practitioner (whatever that means :P ). BUT I did just watch The National Theatre at Home’s streamed production of Nye (starring the beloved Michael Sheen) and I couldn’t help but notice how the opposition kept throwing out the excuses of, “This is just too much too soon!” and “This will change the doctor and patient relationship! This will change the doctor and state relationship!” Gee, that sounds awfully familiar…very similar to what parliament said about the NHS and how a change like that would destroy us all. Obviously, the two issues are very different, but it bugs me to no end when the main argument any opposition can land on is just that, “This is too different! I can’t deal with the change!”
For the record, I’m not entirely sure how I feel about assisted suicide/assisted dying. I suppose I’m looking at it the same way I look at abortion: I certainly don’t like abortion, but I can understand that there are times and places where it is necessary. But where exactly are those times and places and how do we safeguard people on the fringes of society from being steamrolled and coerced? Ultimately, I’m glad that the bill is moving on to the next stage because the members of parliament will have to dive more into the bill itself rather than the issue. If the Unionists are going to continue to be against this bill, then they need to come back with hard facts and evidence that it is not a sufficient piece of legislation…OR they need to be do as Layla Moran said and just flipping admit that they don’t want anything like this passed. Stop wasting our time with endless sad stories because that’s just an emotional response that freezes debate without genuinely talking about what’s really at stake here. Like I said, I’m not entirely on one side or the other (though it does appear that I’m siding with the government), but, as someone who is on the fence, I feel underwhelmed by the arguments brought forward by the opposition. Do more. Come back fighting. Win me.

Want to support me? (You're too kind!)
* Become a Patron on Patreon
* Make a donation via Venmo ( @Deanna-Strasse )
* Donate to my GoFundMe page

0 Comments