Thread by @jmgillies

A fisk of this article by a Lib Dem MSP, doing the rounds today. In summary, plenty bold statements without any regard to evidence or ethical concerns. scotsman.com/news/opinion/c…

Let’s look at this statement first, on the latest Holyrood proposals. This completely neglects the idea that the laws in these jurisdictions could be problematic. And they are problematic, particularly when it comes to the issue of incremental extension.

In the State of Victoria a year on from introducing assisted suicide Australian academics have already started hacking away at so-called ‘safeguards’. The Victoria law came into effect in June 2019. An academic paper was published in May 2020 (less than a year later) states:

“While safety is undoubtedly ethically important, we caution against an overemphasis on safeguarding in voluntary assisted dying legislation given the implications for equal access.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32404097/

Key terminology used in the report includes the terms ‘equal access’ and ‘equity’. Here is the so-called 'slippery slope' at work again in a jurisdiction that is politically and culturally much the same as our own.

In Canada, exactly the same thing is happening only a few years after Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) legislation was passed. An article yesterday on a legal forum notes that the regional Quebec government is:

"...following in the footsteps of the federal government and has waived the final lucid consent requirement before receiving medical assistance in dying”. thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/27684…

These developments imply that once the door is opened to assisted suicide, there is a real risk of calls to extend its application on the grounds of equal access to include other groups of people who do not have a terminal illness. This is why disability groups are so concerned.

How can Mr Cole Hamilton and other campaigners for 'assisted dying' guarantee that the same scenario wouldn’t play out in Scotland? The answer: they can't. They expect us to take their word for it.

The above quote also assumes those suffering are ‘beyond the reach of palliative care’. That’s a bold, sweeping statement. Even the experience of those in terribly hard situations suggests that good palliative care works.

This month, one of the foremost assisted suicide campaigners in the UK, Noel Conway, died after a long battle with motor neurone disease (MND). His passing was marked in the UK Parliament.

Mr Conway’s wife Carol Conway told the media that her husband had died peacefully, that the hospice team and ventilation nurses had shown empathy and concern, and ensured he had a painless and dignified death.

It was a significant statement that should, at the very least, give us pause when reading claims that hard cases cannot be dealt with under current, compassionate provisions.

Secondly, let’s look at this statement: ‘it isn’t a big change’. Again, a bold statement that would be strongly disputed by many, many experts.

Assisted suicide legislation represents a huge change that would very obviously impact on many areas including the experience of ageing, the dynamics of the family, and the practice of medicine to name but a few.

Here are just some of the major ethical and practical concerns associated with assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Ethical concerns include that the practices:

❌Weaken society's respect for the value of life;

❌Imply that some lives are worth less than others;

❌Risk a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia;

❌Affect other people's rights, not just those of the patient.

Practical concerns include that the practices:

❌Cannot be properly regulated;

❌Could lead to less good care for the terminally ill;

❌Could undermine the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives;

❌Could become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill;

❌Could discourage the search for new cures and treatments;

❌Could undermine the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief.

Unless campaigners can provide suitable evidence to answer all of these concerns, there is no justification for changing the law.

In previous debates, the evidence has overwhelmingly found that they cannot be answered. That’s why other proposals were voted down. What's changed?

Thirdly, let us consider this paragraph.

Ethicists would strongly dispute the idea that the deliberate ending of a life is not suicide.

There is a huge ethical difference between this and the withdrawal of treatment.

Furthermore, the supposed ‘safeguards’ mentioned here are problematic, to say the least. Terminal diagnoses are fraught with uncertainty. Some people given months to live go on to live for years.

Who is to determine whether or not a patient’s expressed desire to access assisted suicide is not because they are depressed?

And who is to say that the opinion of two physicians would put beyond doubt that an incredibly vulnerable individual is not being coerced?

In conclusion, this article shows that the case being made by the other side is not grounded in evidence.

I am deeply concerned about this, as are many others.

We cannot see politicians make a decision on a seismic issues such as assisted suicide based on rhetoric alone.

The consequences of rushing ahead with this change without proper, lengthy, thorough, and impartial scrutiny hardly bears thinking about.

@threadreaderapp unroll