The news that Westminster is to debate a proposed bill to enable assisted dying in England and Wales will come as a relief to many people, while being a source of concern for others, particularly those with disabilities.
The arguments on both sides are compelling. Why not allow a person with a terminal illness the right to decide for themselves when they have had enough suffering and want to depart with dignity when they are ready?
But what about those who may feel they should make that choice, even if they don’t want to, because they want to spare their family members what they fear is a burden of caring for them?
And what of those unscrupulous relatives putting pressure on the elderly and sick as a means to get an inheritance? What about the pressure it places on doctors?
It’s not a subject with easy answers, yet it is long overdue that a serious conversation is held about what alternatives there should be to the solo trip to Zurich for an exit in a lonely apartment, courtesy of Dignitas.
I hope I never have to make that choice personally, but I would like to have it as an option.
An Oireachtas committee report earlier this year made recommendations that outline that people with incurable, irreversible, progressive and advanced illnesses that will cause death within six months should have access to assisted death.
There are countries, including Belgium, where the rules are too lax. People have been allowed to end their lives at a relatively young age because of suffering from depression or other psychiatric disorders.
In the state of Oregon, it’s been legally available for the past 25 years with little opposition and it’s now available in 10 other US jurisdictions, while it is also available in all six states of Australia, as well as New Zealand and parts of Europe, including Spain. Scotland is currently looking at similar legislation.
One of the strongest arguments against euthanasia is the belief that it weakens the argument for an improvement in palliative care, and allowing it will lead to less good care for the terminally ill, as it will be more cost-effective to let people die.
But there needs to be much greater honesty about what the reality is like now for people with terminal illnesses. Just look at the problems faced by the hospice movement, which is still forced to find fund-raising ways to bolster government support.
Earlier this year, the NI Children’s Hospice had a funding crisis that forced it to reduce the number of beds it could provide for desperate families.
My brother Patrick died last October after the cancer he’d fought for several years finally spread to his brain. He wanted to live as long as he could and managed to be able to walk both his beloved daughters down the aisle before the disease got too hard a grip.
He even managed, heroically, to finish his novel “A Hard Place”, set against the background of the decision to locate the second university in Coleraine instead of Derry, though he wasn’t well enough to do the publicity launch.
But his final few months of life were very hard for both him and his wife Julia, because proper care for the dying is actually very patchy.
His stay at a hospice near his home in York was not always easy because the family felt under pressure to bring him home several times because of the scarcity of rooms available.
It should not be this way, but it is. Palliative care and dignity in one’s last days should be a given. It should not be down to charities to stage fun runs, ballots and other time-consuming efforts to keep facilities going.
The NHS was set up to provide care “from cradle to grave.” But that is not the reality and pretending otherwise because you oppose euthanasia is just cruel.
The NHS was set up to provide care “from cradle to grave”. But that is not the reality and pretending otherwise because you oppose euthanasia is just cruel