NEXT STOP, LETHE

The old and the sick shouldn't be given a quick exit button (Philip Johnston, The Telegraph, October 10th, 2005)

The Bill seeks to legalise medical assistance for the suicide of people who are terminally ill and suffering unbearably, but who are mentally competent to make up their own minds. In cases where the individual is physically incapable of taking the action to end his or her life, voluntary euthanasia would be lawful.

The last time this subject was considered by Parliament was in 1993, when the select committee on medical ethics issued a robust report that reasserted the prohibition on intentional killing to be the cornerstone of the law and social relationships, even in circumstances where the person concerned was terminally ill and had requested such action.

So, what's changed in the past 10 years or so? Firstly, legalised voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide has been introduced in several jurisdictions - Oregon in America in 1997, and in Holland and Belgium in 2002. Experience in these countries has galvanised campaigners to press a similar case here.

Secondly, there has been a steady increase in popular support for a change in the law. In a Daily Telegraph/YouGov survey in August, an astonishing 87 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that people who are terminally ill "should have the right to decide when they want to die and to ask for medical assistance to help them".

On the face of it, there can be few starker examples of Parliament being out of step with public opinion. Yet surveys ask a straightforward question that contains none of the complex and sensitive ethical dilemmas associated with such a difficult subject. When people answer "yes", they have in mind specific instances of suffering, witnessed either in their own families or in cases, such as that of Diane Pretty, that come to public attention through the courts. [...]

There is something beguiling about the arguments for the proposed legislation, but when the details are examined some serious concerns arise. For instance, there is nothing in the Bill that prohibits a doctor or a nurse suggesting assisted suicide to a patient. The Bill also does not specify that "unbearable suffering" need be intolerable pain. It could involve "existential suffering", including feelings of loss of dignity or self-worth. This is a dangerous way to proceed. The pressure on both doctors and patients to use assisted suicide or euthanasia laws will be difficult to resist.

Try to imagine the ambiguities of a parent of young children electing such a course and you will understand that what is driving this change in public attitudes is not so much greater compassion as the conviction these people are burdens we see no use for and who should therefore have no claim on our sophisticated medical resources.