Report illustrates arguments for and against assisted dying

WHILE the inevitability of death and manner of our eventual passing is something which affects us all, it is a topic seldom discussed openly.

Yet for those who are terminally ill, the subject is a pressing one. Everyone wants to die free from pain and with dignity, and yet much may be beyond our control and that of carers.

Which is what makes our report on Page 6 such a poignant and thought-provoking one.

Devon man Tim Wardle, aged 84, has terminal cancer and wishes he were able to end his life with dignity.

Assisted dying is not legal in this country and the retired architect cannot afford the cost of travelling to somewhere like Switzerland where it is, arguing for a change in the law in Britain.

“I would go if I could afford it. Many, many people can’t afford that,” he says.

Now on end-of-life care he is determined to face death on his own terms after losing his grandfather, mother and two sisters to cancer.

“The thing I fear is a loss of dignity,” he adds, arguing: “We’re Victorian in our attitude to death. We treat our animals better than we do people. If you find a pet to be suffering intolerably, you are considered to be doing the right thing if you have them put down. If we can do that for our animals who can’t express a view, why can’t we do that for humans who can.”

The arguments regarding assisted dying are complicated and views often firmly held.

Those opposed, some on religious grounds, argue that if such acts were legal in this country then pressure might be brought to bear on people to end their lives out of fear of becoming a burden. They are concerned a change of law would alter society’s attitude towards the elderly and seriously ill and that even ‘safeguards’ would not ensure that decisions are truly voluntary. It would also change the role of doctors, potentially influencing their approach to supporting patients.

Certainly our palliative care services do all they can to ensure a dignified end for so many in their care.

Those in favour of assisted suicide, which is permitted in Switzerland for example and allows drugs to be selfadministered, argue that it enables people to take control over their final passing. They argue that despite the best efforts of carers, some dying people experience unbearable physical or emotional distress that cannot be relieved, and that physicianassisted dying is a legal option for over 150 million people in countries where it is legal.

The respected medical journal the BMJ says: “The issue provokes strong feelings, among doctors as well as the public worldwide. Proponents of physician-assisted dying claim that access to the option gives dying people choice and control over their death and can prevent intolerable and intractable suffering. But opponents fear consequences for vulnerable people, for society, and for the medical profession when doctors are permitted actively to induce death.”

The case of Mr Wardle and others like him gives pause for thought. As difficult a subject as it may be, it is one that should be openly debated so that the arguments are fully aired and understood.