The Assisted Dying Bill
Guardian, 2024). However, because they are not in severe pain, their argument to be included in the Bill is much weaker, and they should rather be given support through elderly care networks instead. Unfortunately, with regards to moral dilemmas like physician assisted death (PAD, for short), it can be extremely difficult to arrive at a justified answer. Therefore, in order to find the answer to whether the Assisted Dying Bill should be extended, a criterion needs to be established that we can use to see whether non-terminal cases should also be eligible. Throughout this dissertation, we will compare non-terminal PAD against three different criteria points to determine whether the Bill should be extended. Firstly, are the general public and medical practitioners in favour of euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill? Secondly, can we guarantee that there won’t be any major consequences to legalizing assisted dying beyond the scope of terminal illness? And lastly, is the difference between terminal and non-terminal euthanasia small enough to the point where you cannot justify one without legalizing the other? It is important to note that, as it stands, the Assisted Dying Bill will only be for those with terminal illnesses. Therefore, in order for us to reach the ultimate verdict that the Bill should be extended, each verdict needs to be clearly in favour of non-terminal euthanasia being implemented. It is one thing to have the support of Parliament, as outlined in the introduction, but another to have the backing of the public. In fact, for a Bill to have its clauses amended there should be a general level of approval from the citizens, so as to ensure democratic legitimacy. So, for there to be an argument for voluntary euthanasia for the non-terminally ill, there needs to first of all be a public sentiment in favour of an extension to those applicable for PAD. Generally, public sentiment on various issues is measured using nation-wide surveys (CMPR India, 2024). However, because of how specialized assisted dying for the non-terminally ill is, there is only a limited amount of data available which we can use to draw conclusions. While the statistics discussed in what follows can be a useful tool to get a general overview of public opinion, by no means are they a completely accurate representation of the overall population. The main survey I am going to use for reference was conducted by the Nuffield Council of Bioethics in February 2024 and received over 2000 legitimate responses over a two-week timespan. The data found is reflective of the participants’ true opinions – responses completed in under 3 minutes were discounted, as were responses that put in random numbers/letters into open-ended questions (Nuffield Bioethics, p. 40). Furthermore, 4 out of 5 of the respondents correctly identified definitions of assisted dying that were included amongst a group of 7 statements about end-of-life care (Nuffield Bioethics, p. 9), indicating that the majority of candidates had at least some knowledge on the issue of voluntary euthanasia. Having said that, it is important to clarify two things. Firstly, the poll was completed seven months before the Assisted Dying Bill was introduced into Parliament, meaning that the issue had significantly less media coverage at the time, and it can be argued that opinion would be more socially conservative than today. Secondly, while a significant number, 2000 responses is by no means equivalent to the viewpoints of the entire population, although the survey did use quotas to ensure that each age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic group and geographical region were fairly represented (Nuffield Bioethics, p. 41).
First, support for terminal patients being prescribed lethal drugs was at 71% (Nuffield Bioethics, p. 22). Interestingly, the age group found to be most in favour of assisted dying was the elderly, with 77% of those between 65 and 74 agreeing that it should become legalized (Nuffield Bioethics, p. 15). This finding
176
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting