Blog

With so much excitement in the news – a new pope, a trade deal, and so much more – there is a danger we may miss something speeding towards us.

And fail to act when we should.

It looks likely that the Assisted Dying Bill will be debated for its “third reading” in the House of Commons this coming Friday, 16th May, a week today.

This proposes one of the most consequential changes in our law for decades, if not centuries.  The common law of England (derived from the Ten Commandments) prohibits murder.  But now, doctors will be authorised deliberately to kill patients in certain circumstances.

I’ve written about this previously in a couple of posts, before and after the last vote in the Commons.

Will we pray?  And would we consider writing?  I guess that you, like me, will feel weary and wonder if our voice can make a difference.  On sabbatical I read a remarkable book by William Wilberforce (of which more anon!); I was reminded how for 20 years, 1787-1807, he tirelessly campaigned against the slave trade.  That was motivated by a similar concern for the vulnerable and for human life.

Here is my letter to Daniel Zeichner, our MP in Cambridge, this week, my second to him:

Dear Mr Zeichner,

Ongoing thanks for yours and our government’s work on our behalf.

In my day job I have contact with many people who are deeply concerned about, indeed opposed, to the Assisted Dying Bill, which we gather may shortly be due for its third reading.  You have set out to us already your own view, but I plead with you to reconsider.  

Procedurally, this is a massive change in English law, and it is very shoddy that it is being so rushed – receiving less air time in Commons debates than the fox hunting bill a few years ago.  Despite having huge implications for public policy, the government is abdicating responsibility by leaving this as a private member’s bill.  It puts vulnerable people at risk, with even, I gather, some mental health conditions being allowable as a reason for assisted dying.  It will make the weak and elderly feel they are draining the public, or their family’s, purse, just by choosing to stay alive.  According to a palliative care consultant I know, ¾ of palliative care doctors are against it – and they should know.

I gather that in committee stage some of the guarantees which were promised at the second reading have now been eroded.

I believe sometimes a policy looks appealing on the surface but further thought shows it to be a disaster – sometimes because of implications which haven’t been thought through.  I beg you to reconsider.

 With thanks again, and kind regards,

 Alasdair Paine