([London] Times) James Eglinton–Assisted suicide: how much risk to the vulnerable are we willing to accept?

As a supporter of assisted suicide, Lord Sumption’s argument is commendably honest. He recognises that the Leadbeater bill creates a new kind of society. Although it sprinkles us all with the same fairy dust of autonomy, our new-found entitlement does not land on us all equally. Rather, because of pre-existing social inequalities, it creates two distinct groups. In one, we find “strong-minded, articulate individuals.”

They have a high sense of self-worth and good support networks. To them, assisted suicide represents an idealised form of dying on their own terms. It is an empowering possibility for a future dark day, an option (perhaps that such a person will never actually use) rather than an obligation. In the other group, Lord Sumption writes, we find “the genuinely vulnerable”. For many reasons (illness, old age, hard life circumstances) people in this group often feel dictated to by life. They cannot hold prime ministers to personal account, and are not of much interest to the media. In many cases, their support networks are threadbare.

Lord Sumption admits that such people have good reason to fear the Pandora’s Box opened by Leadbeater’s bill. For them, in time, it will be less an empowering hypothetical option for a future day and more a dark cloud that will hang over every day, a silent obligation to be resisted rather than a liberating insurance plan. Although he supports assisted suicide, it is for the sake of the vulnerable that he is unable to “rejoice” in the first wave of an incoming tide.

Read it all (subscription).

Posted in Aging / the Elderly, Anthropology, Death / Burial / Funerals, England / UK, Ethics / Moral Theology, Life Ethics, Politics in General, Theology

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.