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”
Leon Wolfeson
Because it’s happened that way with midwives, as noted above. It’s exacerbated a shortage. (And people with certain beliefs are not going to enter the profession in the UK now, as only the NHS trains…)
Doctors are the medical professionals who would be struck off under your plan here.
Placing it *explicitly* outside the scope of the NHS, because there is a clear moral debate and a significant proportion of doctors would rather give up their licence than be forced to be involved…
Guest
“Every jurisdiction which has legalised assisted dying has seen no extension”
Factually incorrect. Belgium expanded on their 2002 bill in 2006.
Sionnan_Eilis
There you go again with your assumptions and accusations as to my personal beliefs and wishes. Perhaps we could try and keep this to a healthy debate similar to the one you mention above? Firstly, to clarify, Midwives and nurse are entirely different professionals in different roles with different training, so no…the example mentioned above does not apply to nurses. Secondly, doctors are expected to perform all manner of procedures that some may not personally agree with. As with all other HCPs, they are expected to fulfill the role they train for and apply for, they do not get to cherry pick which aspects of the role they agree with, so yes, if it becomes part of their role and some do not agree, they may choose as they will. Are you suggesting a doctors choice of career pathway should take priority over the possibility of a dying patient having control over the manner of their death? Placing assisted dying outside of the NHS runs the risk that it will be unaccessible to many who need it. This should not be a law for the wealthy to have a choice and the poor to suffer, it should be NHS led in order for equality of access and to be free at the point of need.
Leon Wolfeson
No, I am talking about what you have repeatedly said you favour. You are frantically fighting for ending the debate here, trying to reject the clear consequences of what you are calling for.
If you are a medical professional, then I feel for the patients who have to suffer under your type of poorly-considered “care”.
Your cavaliar dismissal of any ethical issues and your demand that all NHS doctors conform to a single standard really shows your agenda here – what else is on it, because I’m sure there are plenty of other things with which I disagree.
You try and bring up a chimera, for which charity support would exist, to justify your determination to purge large numbers of doctors as ideologically unacceptable to the NHS.
That’s all there is to it. Your ideal NHS, run along your personal moral lines and with only the medical staff who completely agree with your exact bioethics. That’s 60% of doctors gone on this one issue alone, and certainly far more on other issues.
But hey, I’m sure the of doctors who quit would be heavily involved in the system which would end up replacing the utterly insufficient NHS, shame about the principles of “equality of access” and “free at point of need” which you are in practice strongly opposing.
Your pure and ideal NHS, a tattered remnant – the Tories would be proud.
Guest
Oh, and you’re clearly not familiar with the issues and the Declaration of Geneva, so I have absolutely no reason to believe you’re any kind of medical professional – any such speaking on this would understand what I said and have addressed it, because it’s critical to understanding why so many Doctors oppose involvement in any form of deliberate termination of life.