MPs must make up their minds up on assisted dying – whether they want to or not

If nothing else, the Health & Social Care Committee deserves an “A” for originality.

It has managed to produce a report on assisted suicide that contains barely any recommendations, beyond the importance of investing more in palliative (end-of-life) care – which is hardly controversial. It would be churlish to disagree with it.

But in trying hard not to upset anyone who holds a position in this emotive debate – those who want to give seriously ill patients the option to “die with dignity” by a method quaintly referred to as “assisted dying” or “assisted suicide” (AD/AS), versus those who believe this is euthanasia by another name – the report pleases no one.

And it’s not for want of trying. The committee received more than 68,000 responses to its online form, and more than 380 pieces of written evidence. It heard from experts around the world, on both sides of this highly controversial and polarised debate, as well as from people who might be affected by changes to the current law.

And the upshot of it all? A studiously “balanced overview” of all the evidence… and precious little else.

“Although select committees usually make recommendations to government, in respect of AD/AS, the government has made it clear that it will not take any steps towards legalising AD/AS. This would be Parliament’s role, should Members wish to do so.”

Assisted dying or assisted suicide, AD or AS… even when it comes to the basics, the honourable members have chosen to sit on the fence. Your typical MP will happily vent on the best course of action on almost any subject imaginable, from the price of bacon to the UK’s nuclear deterrent. Not this matter of life or death, though.

Of course, one big reason for their fence-straddling is the complex nature of the debate, which only gets more complex the deeper you get into the weeds.

Polling tends to show that the public favours legalisation. The report quotes the British Social Attitudes Survey in which 77 per cent of respondents said it should “definitely” or “probably” be allowed, down somewhat from the 82 per cent in 2005. However, when doctors, who would be at the sharp end were AD/AS ever brought in, were asked what the British Medical Association’s position on prescribing drugs for eligible patients to self-administer to end their own life should be, just 40 per cent of respondents stated “supportive”. Some 33 per cent were “opposed”, 21 per cent were “neutral” and 6 per cent were “undecided”.

It gets really interesting when you consider what the BMA found when it analysed the results: those most likely to be opposed “worked in clinical oncology, general practice, geriatric medicine, and palliative care”. In other words, the fields in which patients would be considered most likely to be interested in AD/AS.

To its credit, the committee did a deep-dive into the international situation, looking at countries that have adopted some form of it. Those in support like to cite the example of Australia, where the legal framework has remained relatively stable in response to those who fear legalisation would be the thin end of the wedge, as in Canada. It resembles a horror movie in which disabled and homeless people, some of them veterans, have been unable to secure the care and support they need to live and have had its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) programme suggested to them as an option. Some have sought it out.

This is why many of us with disabilities find the prospect of it coming to Britain so deeply frightening. I suffer from chronic pain, which is at times unbearable, particularly recently. There are effective treatments for it, but it has been getting harder and harder to access them with the NHS in the state it is in, and the bad attitude it sometimes has towards disabled people. Where would it leave me if the UK was to follow Canada’s road?

Don’t let’s pretend that it could never happen here. The campaign in favour of AD/AS is large and well-funded. These groups don’t tend to go away once they’ve “won”. They have large eco-systems and mouths to feed. The next step would be to lobby for more “liberalisation” of a policy that I don’t regard as at all liberal. To the contrary: a liberal society shouldn’t be considering this sort of measure unless it can, and is willing, to offer effective support to those with disabilities and medical conditions who want to live. The UK does not do that as things stand.

The committee’s broadly neutral summation of the evidence puts it in line not only with the government, but also where most non-governmental organisaitons are, too. The BMA also has a “neutral” position on AD/AS, although that represents a softening from its previous “opposed”. Many disabled people’s organisations sit on the same fence. I’m not going to pretend that there isn’t a debate in my community here, and a fierce one at that.

In one sense, this report is a win for those of us opposed to change. However, the committee did note that it is entirely possible that one of the UK’s constituent parts, or a crown dependency such as Jersey or the Isle of Man, may soon introduce legislation that changes this. Such legislation would have implications for the rest of the country, even if (as is being discussed in Jersey) a residence requirement was attached.

The UK is also poised to elect a new parliament, which will look very different whatever the result of the coming general election, not least thanks to a large number of incumbent Tories stepping down. It will reshape the fence on which so many lawmakers have for so long uncomfortably sat.

The next assisted dying report will necessarily look very different. And that’s a prospect that chills my blood.