Assisted dying set to attract renewed attention amongst the public – but is the law likely to change in the near future?
A powerful documentary following a terminally ill man’s journey to die at a suicide clinic in Switzerland will air on BBC Two this month and is likely draw renewed public attention to the issue of assisted dying.
Several polls – including the British Social Attitudes Survey – show strong public support for a change in the law to allow terminally ill adults assistance from a doctor to die. But recent developments suggest that the law isn’t likely to change in the near future.
Last September’s Commons vote on Labour MP Rob Marris’ private member’s bill on assisted dying – the first in 20 years – demonstrated disparity between the opinion of the public and MPs on the issue. Whilst Marris’ bill was reasonably conservative in its provisions – only those in the terminal stages of an illness with six months to live would be allowed to use the law – its overwhelming defeat in the Commons raises questions as to why politicians seem to overlook public sentiment on the issue.
The position of the British Medical Association
Parliament, in considering Marris’ bill, might have fulfilled an earlier challenge set by the supreme court to debate the issue. But the result of the vote is unlikely to have come as a surprise to those seeking a change in the law.
One key reason for politicians’ reluctance to support a change in the law might be due the current policy position of the British Medical Association (BMA).
Whilst medical professionals hold a range of views on assisted dying and support for the practice tends to be lower than amongst the general public as a whole – the BMA’s current policy opposes all forms of assisted dying. As a result, the organisation supports the current legal framework and it aims to enable patients to die with dignity through provision of high quality palliative care.
The BMA recognises the wide range of views of its members and has launched a major research project in November 2014 (to examine both the public and medical professionals’ attitudes on the issue), but it states that the intention of the project isn’t to alter its position on the issue, rather to facilitate informed debate. Its recommendations are anticipated sometime early this year.
Some medical professionals, including former Royal College of Surgeons of England president Sir Terence English, argue that the BMA should adopt a neutral position on the issue. Others, including the BMA’s former president-elect Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, express concern that: ‘neutrality was a euphemism for opening the door to physician-assisted dying’. The organisation as a whole rejected the option of a neutral stance at its 2012 conference.
Support in Parliament on the issue
If another conscience vote took place in Parliament – in the absence of increased support amongst medical professionals and the professional organisations they belong to – MPs will undoubtedly face a tough decision. Those that support change and/or who wish to represent their constituents’ views may feel as if they are ‘flying in the face’ of expert opinion. The centrality of medical opinion in Commons debate has been apparent on other so called ‘conscience issues’ – for example debate on reducing the time limit for abortions as part amendments to the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
But the result of the vote on Marris’ bill (330 votes to 118) demonstrates that – as opposed to the recent conscience vote that legalised same-sex marriage – politicians aren’t ready to permit even a conservative change to the law in the area of end of life decisions. A key task that lies ahead for campaigners will be to convince ‘liberal’ Conservative MPs that a change in the law is needed. Research suggests this group was key to the ‘securing the numbers’ during the recent conscience vote on UK marriage equality legislation. Whilst there’s support from a reasonable section of the Labour Party, it’s unlikely that the current make-up of Parliament will permit change by relying on their support alone.
With change on the issue via legislation in Parliament almost out of the question – where might campaigners focus their attention in 2016? Ironically, the 2014 supreme court ruling which challenged Parliament to legislate on the matter also ruled that the judiciary has constitutional authority to intervene in the debate. This means that those seeking assistance to die might now be compelled to return to the courts for a decision on the issue – which could focus on the compatibility of the existing law with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Author bio.:
Dr Alison Plumb is an expert on the politics of assisted dying and the resolution of morality policy issues in parliament. She completed her PhD on the politics of voluntary euthanasia in the Australian state and territorial parliaments at the Australian National University in 2014. Her thesis involved analysis of over two decades press coverage of the issue, several hundred hours of parliamentary debate and over 20 interviews with key players. Alison’s research has been published in leading academic journals including Parliamentary Affairs, Legislative Studies and British Politics.
