British end-of-life challenges and choices

(Mark Taylor is a non-religious funeral celebrant working with Humanists UK. He is also a member of the Pastoral Team at his local hospice. In his work, he spends a great deal of time talking to people who are close to death and to the bereaved. Mark welcomes the opinions of other people and can be contacted by email or via LinkedIn.)

============================================

There are a few topics that might be called democratic anomalies in British legislation. These are subjects where there is a clear mismatch between popular opinion and parliamentary decision. Two such mismatches are Capital Punishment and Assisted Dying.

Interestingly, the preferences in each debate have changed over time. Since the 1960s, each time the question of restoring Capital Punishment has been put to a vote in Parliament, members have rejected it. This might be seen as anti-democratic because popular opinion across the country has been largely in favor of reinstatement, particularly after there has been news coverage of some especially grisly murder case.

Assisted Dying has been raised in Parliament several times, too, and been rejected on each occasion, despite their being evidence that a majority of the electorate would be in favor.

Times and opinions change; it is now likely that if it were put to public plebiscite, like their representatives, the British people would now reject the return of Capital Punishment.

At the same time, it is very likely that within the next few years, Parliament will accept the will of the people and follow their preferences on Assisted Dying.

Assisted Dying has been the subject of several high-profile campaigns in recent years, with several cases brought before the courts by individuals who have argued that they should be allowed to end their own lives at a time of their own choosing, and that their human rights are restricted by the absence of such allowance. The problem being that others associated with their death have risked prosecution. Friends and family who have been involved, or enabled a person’s life to end, have been prosecuted in the courts for murder, manslaughter, or assisting suicide.

The courts have only admitted cases for consideration from individuals who are immediately affected by the law; that is, only from people who are actually dying. They will not consider representation from interested groups or from individuals who are not at that time affected by the law and are pursuing the case because they or others might be affected at some point in the future.

When people have been prosecuted for causing, bringing about or assisting in the death of a person close to them, and someone has wished it to happen due to incurable illness, courts and judges have been put into difficult positions. There is lack of clarity in how to act and how to punish such offenders.

Partly due to popular opinion and partly from compassion, judges have been instructed to look leniently on cases where a person’s life has been ended in what could be deemed “an act of mercy.” Judging such cases may require the wisdom of Solomon.

In such cases, it is often partners who are prosecuted. Frequently, they plead guilty and have to be convicted, but judges may then impose token sentence or a non-custodial one.

In the United States, there are a variety of approaches to the issue, with each state having its own laws, and there appears to be little guidance at federal level. Britain may end up in a similar position as more powers are devolved to legislatures in each of its constituent countries (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland). A number of Crown Protectorates have already passed or are considering legislation enabling Assisted Dying, notably Jersey and the Isle of Man, and countries similar to Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, and New Zealand have already passed such laws.

Also, there is the question of what has been called by the press, “Death Tourism.” It is thought that at least one British person every week travels to the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland to end their life. In the past, those accompanying relatives or friends have been prosecuted on their return but, as mentioned above, this is less likely now.

In order to avoid Death Tourism, some countries where Assisted Dying is legal have residence regulations to make such “tourism” less easy. Switzerland does not; hence the number of people from Britain and around the world who travel there.

Following on from all this are the arguments around the management of the process as well as ethics. Not surprisingly, there are many arguments put forward by different groups and individuals. In Britain, the churches are no longer as influential as they were, and even within the religious community, opinions vary.

Such questions, as well as consideration of whether and how it might affect those deemed vulnerable, like the elderly and mentally ill, all need exploring. Perhaps this is material that should be pursued in another blog.

Humanists UK is one of the British organizations that actively campaign for Assisted Dying to become legal in the UK.

(Please scroll down to comment.)

---

Final Exit Network (FEN) is a network of dedicated professionals and caring, trained volunteers who support mentally competent adults as they navigate their end-of-life journey. Established in 2004, FEN seeks to educate qualified individuals in practical, peaceful ways to end their lives, offer a compassionate bedside presence and defend a person’s right to choose. For more information, go to www.finalexitnetwork.org.

Payments and donations are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Final Exit Network is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.