Should dignified dying be a human right?

The right to die has been both celebrated and decried and the long-running debate on the issue within the United Kingdom is not letting up. This post seeks to explore whether the law on assisted dying goes against our fundamental ‘right to life’ and whether there should be a right to die. Many of you will be aware of the defeat of the ‘assisted dying’ bill that took place in September with MPs voting 118 in favor of the Bill and 330 against. One thing is abundantly clear: that both sides of the issue carry risks and benefits. This calls for an objective eye – something lacking in the Commons debate which was dripping with emotional anecdotes.

The question we ask is - if we have a right to life then should there also be a right to death? One could argue that there should be no right to die, as death is the complete antithesis of life, but isn’t the process of death essentially part of life? Based on the right to life, there is the assumption that there also should be a right not to have that life. As has been suggested, to deprive individuals of the right to die leaves them not with a right to life, but rather a duty to live: forcing them to struggle onwards regardless of their situation. Thus, it is logical to suggest that if a patient is terminally ill and has the mental capacity to decide, then only that patient should have the power to decide whether life is worth continuing.

Opponents of the legalisation of assisted suicide would argue that as acts of euthanasia are available in countries such as Switzerland, it does not need to be available everywhere and thus should not be a universal human right. However, there are many obstacles that a patient may face in reaching the Dignitias clinic (an assisted dying organisation) in Switzerland for example. They may lack the resources and funds to actually reach Switzerland. Does that mean it is fair that those who can afford to die abroad should have the right but those who cannot are essentially denied the right to die? Also, surely it is unfair to force patients to travel to die in a foreign place rather than familiar surroundings? It may be that they are just too ill to travel, as was recently the case with Tony Mitchell, a multiple sclerosis sufferer who after being told he was too ill to fly to Dignitas in Switzerland, refused food and died a week later. In addition, if the family travel abroad with the patient and provide assistance in their final hour, they are at risk of prosecution upon return. For example, the daughters of a motor neurone disease sufferer, Jackie Baker, were recently forced to cancel a fundraising party to send their mother to a Dignitas clinic after police warned that they could be prosecuted for assisted suicide.

Tony Nicklinson, fought for the right for doctors to legally end his life but failed and so began refusing food and died of pneumonia. He suffered from so-called “locked-in syndrome,” a condition whereby the body is paralysed, but the mind continues to function at a high level. Let us also consider the case of Dianne Pretty, a motor neurone disease sufferer who claimed that the law had taken all her rights away. In her case however, it was suggested that the right to life did not imply a right to die but is there instead to protect the ‘sanctity of life’ and thereby prohibit the intentional taking of life. In addition, the case of Debbie Purdy, a multiple sclerosis sufferer who having been denied her right to travel to Dignitas which would have exposed her husband to prosecution under the 1961 Suicide Act, an issue discussed above, took death by starvation as a way out of her suffering. She protested that there was a lack of clarity on whether there would be a prosecution of relatives who took someone abroad to die and that this was an infringement of her article 8 right to private and family life.

Tony, Dianne and Debbie all would have argued that we should have a right to die with dignity and it is disappointing that the law has limited our right to life, making sufferers feel the need to end their lives through starvation rather than in peace and relief at a time of their choosing. Currently, they have no options. If their loved ones assist them they could face up to 14 years imprisonment and they are simply too weak to take their own lives.

One of the arguments against a right to die is that it is too ‘risky’ to impose such a right as it could lead to abuse. This slippery slope concept features in most academic arguments and is based on the idea that legalising assisted death and euthanasia could potentially ‘open the floodgates’ and lead to more elderly patients being pressured into an early death because they feel they are “too much of a burden” or even to doctors killing off patients who are “too much of a hassle” to save. However, the evidence of this right being abused in countries where assisted suicide is permissible is weak and so doesn’t greatly support this ‘risk’ argument. Although the risks do indeed need to be considered, all that is clear and evident are the benefits, from the pain and discomfort prevented to the dignity and sense of liberty achieved. Opponents on the other hand, seem to often exaggerate the risks and believe suitable pain management through medicine (such as high doses of morphine) is sufficient to alleviate the suffering of terminal illnesses. But, while palliative care is important, it can only temporarily and insufficiently relieve the pain and suffering of the individual.

Another benefit of having a ‘right to die’ is that it would end discrimination between people who are unable to commit suicide and those who are, as it is legal to do so under the 1961 Suicide Act. This means that those unable to physically kill themselves are denied the right to choose how and when they should die. This is inconsistent and unfair, especially where suicide and assisted suicide have the same outcome. In addition, euthanasia and assisted suicide are already carried but with proper government legislation providing ‘a right to die’, I would suggest that any harm or risk to the individual could be sufficiently controlled. However, opponents may bite back and argue that if we take this ‘it already happens so legalise it then regulate this right’ approach and apply it to murder for example, which already occurs then is it better to make murder legal and regulate it properly too? As well as this many argue that regulation is simply impossible.

The law at present is creating unnecessary restraints on human rights and as mentioned above, compassionate acts of assisted suicide are already carried out. In light of this, we need some sort of legislative framework to effectively regulate a practice which is already underway. If a person has a right to control his or her body and life then should they also be able to determine their time of death and the way they wish this to happen. Indeed, if people are able to choose where they work, whether they want children or whom they marry then we should be able to have a choice of how we die, especially when life has become an intolerable burden due to terminal illness. It is wrong to force people to endure conditions that they find unbearable and it is an unacceptable violation of their liberty. Therefore, dignified dying should stand as a human right.