To Assist or Not to Assist

This summer I was lucky enough to be awarded the Birmingham Law School's undergraduate research scholarship. It'll be a great opportunity to work with the Dean of the Law School on how policy should be formulated in respect of assisted dying. Whilst the position does not begin until the end of August, I thought it would be a pertinent time to write my thoughts following the progression of Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill through the House of Lords

In first semester I had the opportunity to attend a talk given by Nazir Afzal, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England, where he discussed his involvement in the case of Re A (Conjoined Twins). He began by quoting the following soliloquy:

Even Dr Who doesn't know what to do

To be, or not to be, that is the question—
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,And by opposing end them? (Hamlet, Act III)

You'll probaly recognise this as the speech given by Hamlet follow the murder of his father at the hands of his uncle. Hamlet laments the pains of life, considering whether the alternative is any better. This quote exemplifies the internal struggle that everyone, more or less, goes through when considering ending their own life. 

So what is assisted dying? Well it's often confused with euthanasia, but there is a subtle distinction between the two. Euthanasia is the killing of another to give relief from suffering, whereas assisted dying is the assistance by an individual to help end the life of a competent patient at the patient's request. The prime example of assisted dying would be a physician providing a lethal dose of medicine upon the patient's request.

At the time of writing assisted dying is only legal in Switzerland, whilst euthanasia is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The latter two countries have provisions for assisted dying and in the American States of Oregon, Vermont and Washington there are assisted dying laws for terminally ill competent adults only.

Under the present English law, suicide isn't illegal; however, assisting in a suicide is. Surely one could argue a right to life necessitates a right to death? Supporters of the legislation to legalise assisted dying claim that all persons have a moral right to choose what they want do with their lives. Opponents argue that to allow assisted dying is to begin a slippery slope to legalised killing, where elderly people may feel a burden and compelled to end their life. I was always dubious of the persuasiveness of this argument until I read that Switzerland has recently extended assisted dying to those not terminally ill, which is exactly the fear that the opponents to assisted dying have.

This is where Professor Sanders' work comes in. From my brief reading of his work he posits the rule-consequentialist 'freedom approach'. This theory prescribes the pursuit of whatever action brings about the greatest 'freedom'. Now immediately this opens up a semantic weakness in the argument; people have different understandings of what 'freedom' means. This will inevitably result in a logomachia during my position but something I hope can be resolved without falling into the trap of creating a circular argument. I am currently finding it difficult to conceptualise how the freedom approach can be effectively applied to the topic of assisted dying, but this is something I am very much looking forward to exploring!