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”
Sionnan_Eilis
Oh get a grip, seriously. I have not claimed to be a doctor, nor am I. I have not claimed my personal beliefs to be above all others, nor do I believe them to be so. I have not at ANY point discussed my ideal NHS nor my morality. Im loving your ability to conjure stuff up, its almost as good as your referencing for the well quantified ‘large numbers’ of doctors that will be purged by my chimera. The rest of your argument regards equality of access and free at the point of need seems to have you tying yourself in knots, you aren’t even making sense. I am an HCP working with palliative patients every day. I know the PATIENT’S end of it. Do you? Have you thought about them AT ALL when ranting and accusing? Try.
Mickey Charouneau
Hello, Belgium had a euthanasia law with the criteria of intolerable suffering from the outset.
Assisted dying (for terminally ill, mentally competent people only) has never been extended beyond terminal illness. Exists in Oregon (1997), Washington (2009) and Vermont (2013).
Guest
Oh yes, I must “grip” your ideology and follow it slaveishly. You have demanded that your ideology be imposed on the NHS, as you twist my words again – I said medical professional and I meant medical professional.
I am not conjutring anything – again, your simple lack of background here with things like the Declaration of Geneva really lets you down, as you claim that you want to lock me up or whatever for using simply facts – your NHS, shorn of much of it’s staff, would not uphold the values you evidently in practice oppose.
And yes, I’m very sorry for the patients – if they exist – who you are working on. Words chosen deliberately. The ranting is yours, your opposition to all those who won’t embrace your precise bioethics, with no room for any kind of debate…
Guest
You were incorrect. Those Goalposts, they don’t move themselves.
Sionnan_Eilis
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I am not demanding my anything be imposed on anyone, I am simply opposing your apparent opinion that a law for assisted dying would definitively lead to NHS professionals being forced to euthanise patients. Assisted dying as discussed in this bill suggests the patient will self administer, not any HCP. Such bills have passed into law in other areas without being changed to anything dire after the passage of years.
I have also not at any point insisted you follow my thinking, you are entitled to your point of view even if I don’t agree with it and even if you don’t think anyone else is entitled to their own. Bizarre seeing as you mentioned healthy debate earlier that you don’t recognise reasoned argument of others or your own ranting.
I have read through my own posts again as I could not believe I would have stated anything so out of character as to a claim that I want to lock you up which you have stated above. I have categorically not stated that at any point. So yes, you ARE making things up or your perception is beyond flawed which places doubt on any reasoning skills you think you may have.
Furthermore, as I have stated I am not a doctor, I have no dealings with the Declaration of Geneva personally but will just quote this line ‘I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life’. Respect for human life, alonside an understanding that death is a natural part of that would require respect for the dying patient to have such choice over the manner of their own death.
As for your previous point that I ‘demand that all NHS doctors conform to a single standard’, yes I damned well do. All doctors are required to do exactly that as are all HCPs. All doctors take the same oath and any personal beliefs should not interfere with their ability to do the job they trained for. If they cannot adhere to the high standards they should not taint the oath.
I will clarify my point one last time as I really am tired of you and your inability to see the point of this post or this bill. The Patient’s are the point. It is about their choices and rights. I personally have never met a doctor, nurse, midwife, physio etc who did not put the needs of their patient first without thought to their own personal beliefs. It’s why we do the job. It’s disappointing that your argument against this bill is your concern for sensitive doctors whom you believe may 30 years down the line, if the law changes, be required to actually put the patient first. I sincerely hope you are not a doctor, and never become the patient who needs this bill.