Thread by @EJ_McGuinness

#AssistedDyingBill: Head vs. Heart (a thread🧵)

When I read about the #AssistedDyingBill I am reminded of the 1988 presidential election where Democrat Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis was asked whether he would support the death penalty should his wife be raped and murdered

His answer was attributed, in no small part, to his loss to George HW Bush in the election.

It was seen as cold, unemotional and bereft of empathy and dispassionate.

Despite being a considered view in keeping with his long held principles.

The answer was even given an homage in The West Wing when Toby gives an excellent riposte which Bartlet gives, and Dukakis should have given.

I am struck by how proponents of the #AssistedDyingBill are very quick to point to real, heart achingly painful examples of how this change in the law is essentially merciful. Here is @Matthew_Wright on @LBC with an impassioned view on the issue:

https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1860606908396077418

And we should be under no illusion. These are gut wrenching, powerful, brilliant and tragic, in the literal sense, arguments for #AssistedDying. And they should be heard, in full, and with huge amounts of respect and consideration.

But, because of their emotive capture, and because human being are emotionally driven, they are given a weight and a legitimacy that their proponents believe give them more validity, particularly with those who have lived experience, over the views and opinions of others.

My parents are, thankfully, still alive. And I thank every day they are. But I am allowed to hold a view on #AssistedDying which is just as legitimate and grounded in my reality as @Matthew_Wright, @ShabanaMahmood, @wesstreeting or @kimleadbeater.

bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

And it is important that MPs view this legislation dispassionately and holistically. We want human, emotional AND logical evaluation of this Bill.

The danger lies when there is amplification of the argument against suffering (emotional) and a diminution of the arguments for safeguarding (logical).

I fear, and I’m reaching the end, that the Private Member’s Bill process is (generally) rushed, poorly crafted and opaque.

Certainly not suitable for this type of social wrench within our country.

If it passes I fear a patchwork of inadequate provisions and an inevitable scandal followed by a public inquiry in decades to come.

If it fails it may well lead to a better process - government sponsored legislation with rigor and evidence.

As a result I wouldn’t support.

@threadreaderapp unroll