The terrifying thoughtlessness of Britain's assisted-dying debate
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons on Friday by 330 votes to 275. The news was greeted enthusiastically by assisted-dying campaigners in Parliament Square, while a demonstration against the bill, held by disability-rights group Not Dead Yet in Old Palace Yard, grew sombre and even tearful.
As regrettable as it may be, I wasn't surprised the bill passed. Although it was ostensibly a free vote and there should have been no whipping of any MPs, there have been rumours of 'soft whipping'. In other words, No10 made it known what was expected of MPs, even while publicly insisting they could vote with their consciences. UK prime minister Keir Starmer certainly made no secret of his support for assisted dying. It is not difficult to imagine this had some influence over the 200 or so new Labour MPs who owe their political careers to him.
The pro-assisted-dying camp also gave MPs very little time to examine and familiarise themselves with the bill. The 38 pages of text appeared just 17 days before the vote. Those who managed to read it all found glaring inconsistencies and problems. Then, just four-and-a-half hours were allotted to debate it in the Commons (the 2004 ban on fox hunting, in contrast, was only passed after a government inquiry and 400 hours of debate). Yet Labour's many new, inexperienced MPs were assured there would be time to iron out the difficulties. They were encouraged to vote on the principle, rather than on the bill itself.
On this, they were misled. This second-reading vote was to agree to the wording of this particular bill, not to affirm the principle of assisted dying more broadly. The process of getting a private members' bill through parliament is such that it will be very hard to roll back or amend at a later stage.
...
Even if the bill's success was not just a product of political strategising, it certainly didn't pass because of the rhetorical brilliance of its exponents. Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine, who sponsored the bill, clearly had no idea of even the basics. She was incapable of giving a straight answer when asked on BBC Newsnight how the coercion of patients would be spotted and prevented. Leadbeater herself has only ever displayed a vague understanding about what her bill would involve.
This low-information debate was truly at its worst during the discussion in the Commons last week. Leadbeater was long on empathy and short on knowledge, repeating stock phrases like 'we are not talking about a choice between life or death; we are talking about giving dying people a choice of how to die'.
In Canada, people are being assisted by the state in killing themselves over financial fears and loneliness -- exactly the sort of thing the proponents of state-promoted suicide said would never happen, and would be stopped if it began to happen.
The failed rogue state of the UK is now going down the same path of Eliminating the Undesirables.
The Nazis wanted to kill the weak and economically unproductive, and they are rightly denounced as monstrous eugenicists.
The leftwing wants to kill the weak and economically unproductive, and they are hailed as forward-thinking humanitarians.
So it really just comes down to your fashion sense -- pink and mauve, or black leather? That's the difference.