A long and complicated path to assisted dying

• The Bill 2024-25, introduced by British MP Kim Leadbeater, was introduced after a distressing case of a 47-year-old music teacher who died from bile duct cancer.

• The bill, which grants terminally-ill adults with less than six months to live the right to die, was a contentious issue.

• The bill was passed with a majority of 55 votes, with 330 members voting for it and 275 against it.

• The bill is now slated for review by a Public Bill Committee, which will scrutinize, fine-tune, and suggest amendments to its clauses before returning the draft to Parliament for final sanction.

• Opposition to the law is based on two main points: the law’s “slippery slope” and the potential pressure on the elderly and disabled to end their lives.

• Critics argue that the law has been expanded to include those facing a “grievous and irremediable medical condition,” diminishing the bright lines of the rule.

• Proponents of the law argue that there are legitimate cases where it might be justifiable to help someone die.

• The law is carefully tailored, excluding adults competent to make decisions, ailing from a terminal diagnosis, and having less than six months to live.

• The person making the claim will be independently assessed by two doctors, with a 14-day reflection time, and no decision will be sanctioned without the High Court’s approval.

Opposition to Physician-Assisted Deaths: A Philosophical Perspective

• Critics argue that the proposed law is deceit disguised as compassion, violating the right to life.

• Supporters of the Bill acknowledge that objections to life-taking and death avoidance should be serious.

• The moral background of the debate cannot permit a complete ban on physician-assisted deaths.

• Every adult has the right to make significant decisions about their lives, whether based on religious faith or conscience.

• The state has a duty to prevent irrevocable acts of self-destruction, but cannot force a competent dying patient to live in agony.

Choice and Dignity in Assisted Dying

• The debates in Britain and India assume universal value.

• The Supreme Court in India has recognized a limited freedom to die, including the right to passive euthanasia and advance medical directives.

• The choice to manage terminal illness is as critical to one’s dignity and independence as any other decision over their body and life.

• The potential for abuse or a slippery slope in assisted dying laws is central to human dignity.

• The rudimentary principle of assisted dying legislation is based on ideas central to our existence, freedom to lead meaningful lives, and rights to privacy, dignity, and autonomy.