10 Commonly Asked Questions about Assisted Suicide
What gives you the right to expect people to die in agony just because you object to assisted suicide? We don’t want or expect people to die in agony; rather, we expect good, effective palliative care services. In England, only 26% of nurses are trained in palliative care, and only 4 out of 6 hospitals teach it. Dr. Richard Lamerton, a palliative care expert and acolyte of Dame Cecily Saunders—the doctor who started the hospice movement—said, “In all my years of work, I have never come across anyone who was dying who we could not help.” We believe in what Dame Cecily Saunders held as her core belief, which should form the basis of the hospice movement: “You should live until you die.” What about my right to die? I have a right to say when and how I will die. No one can prevent someone from choosing to end their own life, but allowing it to become legal could create a dangerous legacy that places vulnerable individuals at risk. The crucial point is that a change in the law suggests society sees certain individuals as “better off dead.” There will be supposed euthanasia safeguards to control who dies, yet history shows that we are not efficient at implementing effective safeguards. Consider the Liverpool Care Pathway; a flawed algorithm was used to determine who should die, and people were killed without permission. Imagine what could happen if such systems were used for euthanasia. Our so-called ‘safeguards’ have failed in other areas too, as seen in instances involving vulnerable groups. In countries where euthanasia is legal, these safeguards often expand. Belgium, for example, has changed laws to permit euthanasia for children of any age, and in Holland, a recent law allows anyone, regardless of illness, to request euthanasia after feeling they have had 'a completed life.' In the decade after Belgium legalized doctor-assisted death, the number of patients using it rose nearly eightfold, according to the national euthanasia control committee, but tracking the true numbers remains nearly impossible. Aren’t you all just crazy fundamentalists pushing your views onto others? This is a crucial issue that affects everyone. With such a large population, you're bound to find individuals of every background involved, and many people are truly concerned about the implications. It’s a tactic for the pro-euthanasia lobby to label groups as misguided or extreme. Notably, there has never been a single disability group that supports euthanasia. Organizations like Dignity in Dying exploit disabled lives to further their agenda. I’d rather die than go into care. Two points should be considered. Firstly, in Holland and Switzerland, individuals can be euthanized if they don’t wish to enter care or grow old. Secondly, if we focus on the fact that social care is so inadequate that people would prefer death, we should question why we tolerate such a disgraceful standard given the high costs of care (ranging from £1,000 to £4,000 per week). This raises significant concerns considering that ischemic heart disease and suicide are among the leading causes of preventable deaths.
What gives you the right to expect people to die in agony just because you object to assisted suicide? We don’t want or expect people to die in agony. We expect good, effective palliative care services. In England, only 26% of nurses are trained in palliative care, and only 4 out of 6 hospitals teach it. Dr. Richard Lamerton, a palliative care expert and acolyte of Dame Cecily Saunders (the doctor who began the hospice movement and opened the first one, St Joseph’s), said, “In all my years of work, I have never come across anyone who was dying whom we could not help.” We believe in what Dame Cecily Saunders held as her core belief, which should form the basis of the hospice movement: “You should live until you die.” What about my right to die? I have a right to say when and how I will die. No one can stop someone from killing themselves if this is sadly what they decide. Unfortunately, allowing euthanasia to become legal won’t just affect that person’s life; they will leave behind a dangerous legacy that could put other vulnerable people at risk. The crucial point is that a change in the law means we acknowledge a category of people that society and even they perceive as “better off dead.” There will be purported safeguards to ensure control over who and what dies. Unfortunately, we have a poor track record with safeguards. Take the Liverpool Care Pathway, where a flawed algorithm was used to decide who should die, leading to people being killed without permission. Imagine what could happen if this system were applied to legalized euthanasia. Our so-called ‘safeguards’ failed to protect vulnerable individuals elsewhere, such as the young girls in the northwest who were exploited. In countries where euthanasia is legal, the safeguards are often expanded or changed, as evidenced in Belgium where laws were amended to include children of any age. In Holland, a new law has been proposed allowing individuals at any age, without illness, to request euthanasia if they feel they have had ‘a completed life.’ In the decade after Belgium legalized doctor-assisted death, the number of patients using it to end their lives rose nearly eightfold, according to records from their national euthanasia control committee. However, the true number is almost impossible to track. Aren’t you all just crazy fundamentalists who are just pushing your views onto others? This topic affects everyone. With such a diverse population, you're bound to find individuals from every background involved. Many people are genuinely worried about this issue and want their voices heard. It's a tactic of the pro-euthanasia lobby to label various groups as misguided or extreme. There has never been a single disability group that is pro-euthanasia. Dignity in Dying uses and exploits the narratives of disabled lives to promote their agenda. I’d rather die than go into care. Two points: firstly, in Holland and Switzerland, individuals can be euthanized if they wish to avoid going into care or getting old. Secondly, if we’re saying our social care system is so inadequate that people would choose death over it, we need to ask why we accept such a disgraceful standard. Given its high cost (between £1,000 and £4,000 per week), why aren’t we demanding better quality care, similar to what is available in other countries? Ischemic heart disease and suicide were among the primary causes of preventable deaths.
People don’t want the indignity of being cared for; they would rather die. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to die? The main problem with this perspective is that it creates a societal expectation wherein individuals feel pressured to conform, and those who are disabled or otherwise different are often viewed as deviating from the norm. People with disabilities already struggle for fair treatment, respect, and value in society. By allowing individuals who are disabled by age or infirmity to choose euthanasia, we send a distressing message: that their lives lack worth and that they can simply be dismissed. We must remember the history of rejecting thousands, even millions, of marginalized individuals. The track record concerning difference remains alarmingly poor; anyone doubting this reality should consult Mencap’s DEATH BY INDIFFERENCE report. Each year, around 1,200 disabled people die due to ignorance, inadequate care, and a systematic undervaluing of their lives. Some may ask, “What does this have to do with euthanasia safeguards?” The evidence is clear—if a person’s life is deemed valuable only based on societal norms, and if society continually reinforces the notion that disabled individuals do not matter, it becomes all too conceivable that euthanasia might be used to eliminate them, as highlighted in the aforementioned report. The phrase “We’re going to let him go” is chillingly frequent. Many people declare, “I’d rather die than go into care.” There are, indeed, places like Holland and Switzerland where individuals can opt for euthanasia if they wish to avoid institutional care or the aging process altogether. If we accept that social care is so inadequate that some would prefer death, it prompts a critical question: Why are we settling for such disgraceful standards of care, especially when it comes to palliative care, which can cost between £1,000 and £4,000 per week? Why aren’t we demanding better quality care as seen in other countries? The narrative that euthanasia is a merciful escape is misleading. After being given an antiemetic to counteract the side effects of the barbiturate, which can induce vomiting, the patient then ingests a barbiturate dissolved in water, a process that can range from 1 to 38 minutes for the effects to manifest. Alarmingly, in about 7% of cases, individuals experience vomiting or spasms, while complications arise in 1 in every 10 cases with barbiturates. In Oregon, the average time to die is around 25 minutes, with the longest instance stretching to 4 days. Those accustomed to a cocktail of medications for addiction, depression, or physical illness may face even longer durations. In the Netherlands, the process involves thiopental, which induces paralysis, followed by pancuronium, used to terminate life, resulting in suffocation—far from a dignified farewell. Advocates may argue that these methods will improve, with pharmaceutical companies racing to create the ultimate euthanasia drug since there’s profit to be made. However, most medical professionals agree that ending a life is not a simple matter; for instance, the dosage of thiopental necessary to euthanize a child is twenty times the standard amount.
Surely if doctors and nurses, the very professionals who work with patients considering euthanasia, deem it a good idea, we should respect their expertise and trust them to act responsibly?
However, a significant number of doctors are genuinely concerned about how legal euthanasia would impact their relationships with patients. In countries where it is legal, many doctors have faced pressure to comply with euthanasia laws or have been coerced into going along with practices that raise ethical concerns. The real issue is whether we can trust doctors, nurses, and carers with such a profound responsibility. Unfortunately, some evidence suggests that not all healthcare providers can be trusted. For instance, in just one year, there were 109,000 complaints about carers in residential homes for the elderly and disabled—averaging 300 complaints every day. Can we truly trust them with the authority that legalizing euthanasia would grant? The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the safety of such practices. While many doctors and nurses are compassionate, there are troubling cases such as Harold Shipman and Beverley Allitt. In Canada, where euthanasia is allowed, the case of Elizabeth Wettlaufer, who was jailed for killing eight elderly individuals in her care, raises significant concerns about potential abuses. Similarly, Donald Harvey, known as the
It’s still easier than a long, protracted death; it doesn’t involve pain or discomfort.
Sadly, this isn’t true. Having been given an anti-emetic because the barbiturate can induce vomiting, the patient or candidate then takes the barbiturate dissolved in water, which can take anywhere from 1 minute to 38 minutes to work. In around 7% of cases, the individual suffers from vomiting or spasms, and in 1 in every 10 cases, there can be complications with the barbiturates. In Oregon, it takes about an average of 25 minutes for a person to die, with the longest recorded time being 4 days. If the individual has been accustomed to a cocktail of drugs for addiction, depression, or a physical illness, this too can influence the duration until death. In the Netherlands, the procedure involves thiopental, which paralyzes the individual, followed by pancuronium, which causes death through suffocation—definitely not a romantic goodbye. Although there may be arguments that medical advancements could improve this process—particularly with the push for euthanasia safeguards—the reality is that most doctors agree that ending a life is just not that straightforward. For instance, if a child is to undergo euthanasia, it requires 20 times the normal dose of thiopentone, highlighting the complexities involved as well as the critical role of palliative care in ensuring humane treatment.
