The ‘slippery slope’ argument we so often hear has not become a reality
The first assisted dying law came into practice over eighteen years ago in the US state of Oregon after a public referendum. Since the law’s inception yearly reports have collated and published information and data which shows how the law works, and critically, highlight that a transparent law is better than the current situation we have in the UK.
The latest report shows that last year 155 people obtained life-ending medication, while 105 had an assisted death. The most recent data we have on the death rate in Oregon is from 2013 when 33,931 people died. This means that 0.3 per cent of deaths per year are assisted.
This is a small – but significant – number of people who exercised control over their imminent death. Many more people would have benefited from openly talking about this choice with their doctor (1 in 50 dying Oregonians initiate these conversations) and simply having the peace of mind of knowing it is an option if they need it will help many people with a terminal diagnosis.
This is not the case in the UK for dying Britons. Currently a person can be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to 14 years for assisting a loved one to die. One person a fortnight is travelling to Dignitas, choosing an assisted death earlier than they would if legal in this country.
Remarkably, British people make up the second largest nationality of patients at Dignitas after Germany, which shares a border with Switzerland. For every person who goes abroad, a further ten terminally ill people are ending their life in the UK, often alone.
Kevin Davis had lost the use of his legs as he was in the last stages of renal cancer and was found at the bottom of the stairs in a pool of blood after he had attempted to end his life. His family do not know how long he lay there, possibly alive. Crucially, we must not forget that there are many more people that are currently suffering against their wishes and will die without the choice that is their right.
If Oregon has shown assisted dying works safely for over 18 years then why hasn’t the UK changed the law already? The British public overwhelmingly support assisted dying and recently Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill won two key votes at Committee Stage – the first vote in Westminster on an assisted dying law for ten years – which showed a 2:1 majority of support in the House of Lords. Now it is looking as if the only barrier to law change is time.
But a vocal minority of opponents seem determined to stop dying people having the option of assisted dying and are now putting their own spin on the latest Oregon report. The number of assisted deaths rose 44 per cent in the last year from 73 to 105, but solely referring to this does not give an accurate picture, especially as other years have seen a drop. The percentage increase sounds dramatic but the absolute numbers involved are very low, and only 0.3 per cent of deaths in Oregon are assisted.
This hasn’t stopped Lord Carlile of Berriew drawing unfounded conclusions though. Speaking to the Catholic Herald, he said:
“I regard these as alarming figures…It suggests to me that in amongst these figures there are cases of people making the decision for assisted suicide for the wrong reasons – such as economic reasons, including the cost of private health care, draining the family assets, feeling a nuisance to their children, depression.”
There is actually no basis for these ‘suggestions’ in the report, which lists the three most common reasons for an assisted death as ‘loss of autonomy’ (91.4 per cent), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86.7 per cent) and loss of dignity (71.4 per cent).
In fact the report demonstrates that the law you enact is the law you get: the criteria for assisted dying has not been extended beyond terminal illness for the eighteen years the law has been in place, so the ‘slippery slope’ argument we so often hear has not become reality. Ultimately it is up to the dying patient to choose if they want an assisted death.
This is not the debate that the public deserve. Oregon has shown that a clear and transparent law can give dying people choice while better protecting vulnerable people.
Mickey Charouneau is press officer at Dignity in Dying. Follow him on Twittter
45 Responses to “Oregon shows that assisted dying can work safely”
Gary Scott
Its not an argument of logic. Like the death penalty its a moral argument. What does this do to those who have to carry out the act? What if, 30 years down the line, you, as a medical practitioner, are told to assist someone’s death. Recently we saw what happened to midwives who had asked to be excused from participating in abortions. Their request was accepted, until about two years ago. Despite taking their case to court, they lost and have to resign if they don’t wish to participate. I don’t think anyone should be stopped from terminating a pregnancy but I think we have to respect their position as they had begun their careers not having to deal with this (it wasn’t on the job spec). This will, in the fullness of time, go the same way. ‘Slippery Slope’ is easy to dismiss when you look at all the official figures. Without being flippant, no one will come back and complain, will they? Will this law extend to children? It does in Belgium. Parents can give consent to children having assisted deaths. Does this seem unsettling?
Mickey Charouneau
Hi Gary – the Assisted Dying Bill has a conscience clause which means any doctor who did not want to participate would not have to. What we’ve seen in Oregon too is a move to acceptance even from opponents, Oregon Hospice Assoc were opposed before 1997 and said in 2008 that it hadn’t negatively effected palliative care and that “none of our fears were realised.”
On the slippery slope argument again we’ve simply got to look at where assisted dying is legal, and there has been no extension. The Netherlands and Belgium started with euthanasia laws, it wasn’t extended from dying people to non dying people.
littleoddsandpieces
Unfortunately, trusting the state with an assisted dying law is not good legislation, for those doing the premeditated institionalised homicide nor the individual nor the family.
Already UK courts are ruling against parents who demand life support is kept on, so breaching diversity religious sensitivies of such as Islam.
Euthanasia is cruel beyond belief as it starves and dehydrates the patient to death that can take a week or many weeks.
Watching it without consent of either patient or family leaves a traumatic bereavement, especially with the casual indifference of those enacting the premeditated institionalised homicide.
We already do assisted dying wtith 40,000 elderly dying early deaths from freezing to death in unheated homes with the lowest state pension of all rich nations bar poor Mexico (Source OECD).
Pension Credit is threatened by the flat rate pension abolishing savings component and the guarantee credit for current and new pensioners being made complex and more condtitional.
The welfare state is all but gone, with 1 million on some kind of welfare aged 60-65 equally liable for sanctions and Bedroom Tax.
No party is offering the end to the 1 million sanctions each year, with the insufficient nearly 1 million referrals to foodbanks, that are not the free daily cafes providing free cooked hot meal and hot drink 7 days a week available in Europe, for equally to all ages, working poor, poor pensioners and unemployed.
The first publicly acknowledged suicide of a man aged 66 due to welfare reform has happened, from a debt he did not owe a council.
And coming in 2016 is the new pensioner with NIL STATE PENSION FOR LIFE,
when many benefits end at 65.
See why under my petition, in my WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT section, at:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
Leon Wolfeson
The medical professional duty one is a good point though. There needs to be a counter to that, and good luck finding one.
Also, more importantly to me, the measures proposed in the UK simply are not strict enough, the safeguards are not written well enough.
Faerieson
The moral angle does indeed make this a most thorny issue. I have watched friends and a parent die; some fight to their last dying breath, but others welcome an end to indignity and suffering. I would be completely unable to decide for another, regardless of how close we were, but I think I could respect their wishes. I would certainly like the choice, for me, when such a time comes.