As readers of this blog and others covering similar issues will know, there has been a lot of intense media attention and promotion on assisted suicide in the U.K. In spite of “right to die” advocates’ claims of a narrow agenda, the media circus hasn’t been limited to people in the last stages of a terminal illness.
Here are some excellent observations and analysis from disability campaigners, courtesy of communitycare.co.uk:
It is the James case that has raised the most moral issues. The DPP (director of public prosecutions) statement says that, despite “sufficient evidence” to prosecute James’s parents, based on the facts of the case it “would not be in the public interest” to do so.
James had been disabled for 18 months before his death and had made three attempts to kill himself. A psychiatrist found that James was both clear in his wish to die and understood that this was against everybody else’s wishes. His parents, along with health professionals, had repeatedly tried to talk him out of wanting to commit suicide at Dignitas, but to no avail, and so eventually decided to help him.
Jane Campbell, chair of the disability committee at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, believes the case sends out a dangerous signal. She says that while it may seem like a personal matter the drip, drip effect of letting such cases go has big implications for society.
“While I completely understand the family have to live with the consequences of their actions, [the Crown Prosecution Service] has got to start prosecuting otherwise it sends out a message that it’s OK to help people die,” she says.
Both Carr and Campbell express some healthy skepticism about the claims from “right to die” advocates that their agenda is limited to individuals with some sort of terminal illness, and more:
Dignity in Dying is campaigning for the law to be changed only for the terminally ill and doesn’t support such a move for disabled people. Hehir says the organisation sees the two groups as very separate.
Carr disagrees. She says the James case shows the debate is not just about terminal illness but also about disability and that society’s negative view of disabled people means any change in the law for the terminally ill would be in danger of being extended to this group.
“In a world that valued disabled people and their lives maybe the legislation could be safe for just terminal illness but it’s not,” she says.
For Campbell, assisted suicide is wrong in both instances: “While we continue to live in a world where disability or end-of-life care are seen as negative, we will never get to a situation where people can take their own lives in a non prejudicial way,” she says.
Like disability advocates all over the world (including the U.S.), advocates like Carr and Campbell already have their hands full advocating for resources that people with disabilities need to live. Not for the first time, they’re having to find more time and energy to advocate against policies that “compassionately” encourage people with disabilities to die. –Stephen Drake