Labour MP Patrick Hurley argues that attempting to legislate for something so deeply personal will likely miss the mark.
Patrick Hurley is the Labour MP for Southport
It’s obvious that the whole concept of assisted dying carries a significant emotional weight. It’s a weight we all feel instinctively. Saying that something is “a matter of life or death” is a cliche because it carries the full burden of that weight. And it’s in that context that the stakes surrounding the current debate on assisted dying could not be higher.
Assisted dying is the most significantly challenging and profoundly personal subject Parliament has debated for a generation. Every MP has without doubt heard heart-wrenching stories from their constituents; stories of families grappling with the immense pain that comes with the end of a life. We all understand the pain that our loved ones go through, and we empathise with the desire to ensure that people at the end of their lives can pass with dignity and comfort. This subject resonates deeply with everyone involved.
For this reason, I and many colleagues have spent countless hours reflecting on this Bill. I have firsthand experience of profound personal loss. I lost my wife to cancer. I empathise deeply with those who are suffering in the final stages of their life. Like many others, I had to watch as the person closest to me endured unbearable pain and a loss of dignity in her final days. I understand the instinct to want to provide an end to a loved one’s suffering.
To me, one thing is clear from all my discussions on this issue; people desperately want a solution to the suffering of the terminally ill. They want reassurance that their loved ones will not have to face suffering without hope. They want to face the end with dignity. As an MP, I want those things for my constituents too, and I want them for people of the UK as a whole.
There is a but, however. For as much as there is the desire for a safe and secure legal framework for assisted dying, I fear for unintended consequences. I fully accept that in some situations, helping people along the way in a loving and supportive context can be the right thing to do. For when the pain is unbearable, the quality of life is so reduced, and the prognosis is bleak. In such circumstances, it can be a response steeped in humanity and love that helps people to end their lives.
But I have come to firmly believe legislation is too blunt a tool to use for such a delicate matter, which in my view may have complications that we cannot fully predict or control. And the troubled progress of the current proposed legislation at committee stage has only given me even more pause for thought than I had previously.
Currently, it is an offence to encourage or assist someone in taking their own life. This framework provides us with clarity and ensures that decisions made in such circumstances as outlined above are treated with the seriousness they deserve. The legal process currently ensures that those involved in helping someone end their life are held accountable. Such cases are by their very nature complex and sensitive, not least due to the tragic events that surround them. The CPS has published guidance for prosecutors when considering such cases. This includes specific public interest factors tending in favour of prosecution and those tending against prosecution. From 2009 up to 2024, there were 187 cases referred to the CPS by the police that have been recorded as assisted suicide. Only four cases out of those 187 of encouraging or assisting suicide have been successfully prosecuted in those fifteen years.
That ratio, to me, looks like a success for those who want to give people the option of an assisted death, whilst also ensuring there are guardrails and safeguards in place. That ratio, to me, looks like the current system is working.
There is a fundamental problem in considering this issue a legal matter rather than a profoundly personal one where compassion and care are the key considerations. There is no legislative, one-size-fits-all, solution; it’s personal and complex.
And it’s this fundamental problem of trying to legislate for each eventuality, each specific circumstance, that has led to the problems the bill has encountered at committee stage. For, regardless of the well-meaning intentions of this legislation it cannot account for the nuances of individual cases. By setting out specific criteria for when assisted dying would be permissible, we inevitably and unavoidably exclude worthy cases while including cases that would not meet our preferred threshold for an assisted death.
Unintended, we risk allowing the prosecution of families who help their loved ones on their way, just because the dying person’s specific criteria are outside the bounds set out in the legislation. The police, the courts, the CPS, the justice system as a whole, will no longer have the discretion it currently has to invoke the public interest; instead, the legislative approach will be given supremacy. And any nuanced individual circumstances that do not accord with the legislation’s rigid criteria could be deemed ripe for prosecution.
The legislation applies broad rules to cover as many situations as possible, but by its nature it is inflexible. It cannot capture the full spectrum of human experiences. Codifying a legal approach to assisted dying could inadvertently lead to injustices.
In writing this, I do not intend to criticise the hard work of those who have drafted this Bill or campaigned tirelessly on this issue. I recognise that they are acting with care and compassion to end suffering for many. But in reality, by attempting to legislate for something so deeply personal, we will likely miss the mark.
A rigid, legal framework should not be forced on an issue that requires a subtle, nuanced, and delicate individual approach, while maintaining sensitivity and discretion. So whilst assisted dying is the right thing to do in some circumstances, a legislative framework for it is entirely the wrong way to go about it.
Image credit: Diliff – Creative Commons
Left Foot Forward doesn’t have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
