by Nigel Biggar, Telegraph
Compassion that takes imprudent risks with the lives of the vulnerable is not a virtue at all
When Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults Bill to legalise assisted suicide for the dying reached the House of Lords, peers faced a dilemma. On the one hand, they heard the persistent concern of advocates for the disabled and several Royal Colleges about the risks of abuse and corrosion of humane social norms that legalisation threatens.
On the other hand, their compassion was aroused by stories of individuals suffering grievously, whose plight couldn’t be assuaged by palliative care, and of those helping them find relief through suicide having to endure police investigation. The bill, urged Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would resolve this intolerably cruel situation.
Except it wouldn’t. By limiting assisted suicide to the terminally ill, the bill excludes those who aren’t dying but are still suffering grievously. And it would still bring the police to the door of those assisting them commit suicide. So, anyone who supports the bill, intending that terminal illness should remain a condition of eligibility, accepts that some people, tragically, have to suffer grievously – because the social dangers of wider access are just too great. But if this situation is tolerable, why is the current status quo not so?
Read also: This is the maddest argument for assisted suicide yet by Michael Deacon, Telegraph. What on earth has the so-called ‘right to die’ got to do with tackling climate change?