Why did Joan have to poison her best friend in a garage?

Welby is wrong about assisted dying, says ex-Archbishop. And this is why...

LET’S make no bones about it – the private member’s Assisted Dying Bill to be debated by Parliament next month is of major social significance for our nation. In offering legal safeguards, it would have implications both for medical staff dealing with the terminally ill, and for people at the point of a painful death, who want their passing to be compassionately eased so that they can die with dignity.

For years, like many in the Church, I was totally against any change in the law, believing that it was a slippery slope with potentially drastic consequences.

I argued it was taking the issue of autonomy too far and would lead to a massive breakdown of trust between doctors and their patients.

So what has led me to change my mind so that today I am persuaded – as a Christian – that the time has come to find a way to give terminally ill people a degree of choice over their end-of-life treatment, and request the help of physicians to allow them to die in peace and dignity?

Last year, in seeking my pastoral advice, a lady highlighted to me the kind of situation that drives people to take that despairing visit to the Dignitas euthanasia clinic in Zurich. Joan (that is not her real name) wrote to me about her act of assisting a close friend to die. Her friend, Margaret, was a woman suffering unbearable agonies, incontinence and helplessness as a result of multiple sclerosis. She ended up unable to move a finger, and begged Joan to help her die. She was too ill to travel to Switzerland.

After months of pressure, Joan reluctantly agreed to assist. One evening, Margaret was in such suffering that Joan picked her up from home and brought her back to her garage, where she ingested a potion they had got off the internet. It was not an easy death as Margaret was unable to swallow properly, and the dose went down with difficulty. Margaret eventually died in the garage.

Joan phoned the police at once and was promptly arrested. Her husband – who ran his business from home and did not know what was going on – was also initially arrested. He was later released, but his computer was taken and returned months later.

Joan’s experience of being treated as a criminal was terrifying. The Crown Prosecution Service eventually dropped charges against her because, I guess, they are aware that friends who assist suffering people are moved to do so by compassion.

There are other factors, too, in this major rethink.

One is a recognition that the very great achievements of medical science and palliative medicine have

Many find indignity and pain are daily companions

resulted in an amazing prolongation of life beyond what previous generations could have dreamed of.

That is marvellous news, of course. But the downside is that many also find living longer more distressing – with pain and indignity their daily companions. Some will respond to this, as I used to do, with the belief that no pain is ultimately beyond the reach of drugs at doctors’ disposal.

Sadly, this is not the case. While the UK is one of the top countries for cancer pain management and palliative care services, many patients still experience excruciating pain which in many cases is poorly controlled.

I have spoken to consultants who tell me that they regularly see patients in severe distress, over-medicated and confused. Two pain specialists wrote to me saying that while they are often able to help these patients, there are cases where there are no interventions which can help. They wrote: ‘In our experience, it is in these situations that comments “to put someone out of their misery” come from patients and their relatives, or other phrases such as “I wouldn’t let my dog suffer like that.”’

All politicians, and even Church leaders, are aware now that the debate is no longer a straightforward argument between ‘let’s leave matters where they are’ and ‘make this radical change’. The point is that the train has already left the station – there is no status quo to return to. People are deciding the matter for themselves; they are taking action that is essentially illegal and spending thousands of pounds to end their lives abroad.

Of course, I am sad that I am out of step with my own Church’s official

People are spending thousands to end their life

position. I respect the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and the bishops who are fighting against this change on a thoughtful and compassionate basis. But I believe that the opinions of churchgoers – and even ministers and clergy – are much more evenly balanced on the issue.

So many of us are now seeing difficult, painful and undignified deaths in our families and among friends because of a wrongful insistence that life must be preserved and prolonged beyond what the individual can sustain.

In difficult ethical matters I often find myself asking: ‘What would Jesus do?’ I think I know what he wouldn’t do. He wouldn’t say: ‘There, there. Pain is good for you. Take it like a man or a woman.’ No, I think he would expect us in these modern times, with all the skills that doctors have, to tend the very vulnerable at the end of life and help them cross into the place of peace that they are craving.

Of course, there are dangers that must be taken into consideration. A legal safeguard introduces judges to the process. They are used to making complex judgments, to ensure that both doctors and patients are protected. Any decision to change the law in favour of assisted dying has to come with caveats in order to prevent unscrupulous people exerting power over the frail and ill.

Will this change the role of doctors? Not at all. We expect medics to accompany us on that journey from birth to death – and with proper controls and strict laws we can provide a framework that will bring quality back into dying as well as living.

I believe that many people who oppose this change do so from the vantage point of fear: fear of the consequences, fear that unscrupulous relatives will push the very elderly to untimely deaths. Fear should never drive policy – only compassion, love and justice should. It is time for Parliament to act fearlessly.