Are MPs misrepresenting the debate on assisted suicide?
by Carys Moseley, Christian Concern:
On Monday, many MPs debated the topic of assisted suicide (wrongly termed ‘assisted dying’) at Westminster Hall.
The first half of the debate was dominated by MPs who were in favour of changing the law. Several of those said they had changed their minds due to hearing stories of suffering from their own constituents.
Rereading the debate on Hansard, one has to wade through a lot of anecdotes before coming to broader arguments about the policies. Some points made by MPs objecting to changing the law raise the fundamental question: are pro-assisted suicide MPs misrepresenting the debate?
The pro-assisted suicide lobby claims to consider all concerns fully
The debate was brought forward by Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour), on the basis of a Parliamentary petition calling for a change in the law.
She said that in preparing for this debate she had met people with many different views on the topic, in particular medics. She said:
“We must never dismiss concerns, but consider them fully.”
This is a tactic that the assisted suicide lobby is using to give an impression of being in favour of everybody’s rights. How well does it stand up?
‘The debate will happen anyway’
Immediately after Antoniazzi said this, Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael stood up to claim that the debate on assisted suicide will happen anyway. Here are his words:
“Is not the truth of the matter that the debate will continue whether we have it here or not? My colleague Liam McArthur has a Bill going through the Scottish Parliament at the moment. Similar legislation is being considered in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands. This issue will have to be addressed. Either we do that in our own time, with our own measured, reasoned debate, or we risk having decisions made for us.”
Carmichael is using the fact that bills for legalising assisted suicide are currently under consideration in Scotland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as a reason for assuming that the law will change in England, Wales and Northern Ireland anyway.
It is incorrect to assume that anybody but Parliament can make a decision to change the law on assisted suicide. This arrogant fatalism shows subtle disregard for opponents and fence-sitters. The real meaning of ‘debate’ here is ‘change in the law’. Maybe Carmichael was hinting at something else, namely a court case designed to force Parliament to change the law.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
