UNITED KINGDOM
24
January 2007
British People Want Change in the Law, Parliament Won't Let Them
Have It
The Guardian newspaper in London reported:
Four out of five people in Britain believe the law should allow
a doctor to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in
pain if they wish to die. In a finding confirming that British
public opinion is at odds with the law, today's British Social
Attitudes Survey reveals strong support for euthanasia, though
only in carefully defined circumstances.
Research conducted for the survey indicates that backing for
voluntary euthanasia depends strongly on whether someone is terminally
ill, on levels of suffering and on how death occurs. There is
much greater support for a doctor being permitted to end someone's
life rather than a relative, or than suicide assisted by a doctor.
Strongest support - from 80% - came for the suggestion that a
doctor should "probably" or "definitely" be
allowed by law to end the life, at the patient's request, of an
individual with an incurable or painful illness from which they
will die, such as cancer.
Seventy-five per cent backed doctor-administered euthanasia for
those with an incurable and terminal illness who say their suffering
is unbearable.
However, public support for euthanasia drops dramatically for
cases where an individual is not already facing death as a result
of their condition. Where the patient has an "incurable and
painful illness, from which they will not die", 45% support
assisted dying, while only 43% back euthanasia for those not in
danger of death but permanently and completely dependent on relatives.
When questioned on a specific condition, public backing falls
still further. Exactly a third of people said they would condone
euthanasia for individuals with an incurable and painful but not
terminal illness, such as severe arthritis.
The survey comes in the wake of a fiercely contested attempt
last year to change the law. A private member's bill introduced
in the House of Lords by the cross-bench peer Lord Joffe proposing
assisted dying for the terminally ill was rejected after a concerted
lobbying campaign by church leaders and others.
The latest social attitudes report concludes that, as a result
of debate over the bill and other high-profile cases such as the
efforts of Diane Pretty - terminally ill with motor neurone disease
- to ensure her husband freedom from prosecution should he help
her to die, the public is now relatively well informed on issues
of assisted dying.
It also argues that public opinion seems to be stable, despite
running contrary to current law. There have been only small variations
since 1989 in backing for doctor-assisted euthanasia for patients
with incurable and painful conditions. The survey also finds attitudes
to euthanasia are rooted in a wider set of values. People who
regularly attend a religious service, for instance, are far less
likely to support euthanasia than people who never attend.
The researchers conclude: "The disjuncture between the current
law on assisted dying and majority public opinion thus seems unlikely
to simply disappear. Pressure to mount further attempts to change
the law in some ways at least looks set to continue."
By Lucy Ward and John Carvel
24 January 2007
There is No Moral Difference Between Killing and Letting Die
Following the report this week of a survey which
showed (again) that 80 percent of British want law reform on voluntary
euthanasia and assisted suicide, this letter to the editor appeared
in the 'Glasgow Herald'':
Public attitudes to euthanasia: your article on public attitudes
to euthanasia raises an important point.
The report states that "those who demonstrate a concern for
the sanctity of life are those who are most opposed to assisted
dying". It may be true that such people claim to be concerned
about the sanctity of life. But it can be argued that allowing
people to end their lives with dignity shows more respect for
the sanctity and value of life than forcing them to die slowly
and painfully.
Recent research shows that people who have witnessed the deaths
of patients who were denied euthanasia are much more likely to
support the practice. This suggests that those who oppose euthanasia
are lacking in the moral imagination necessary to put themselves
in the position of a dying patient.
We should also not forget that a form of euthanasia is already
legal: if a patient requests withdrawal of life-supporting treatment,
he or she is allowed to die. While doctors might be reluctant
to embrace euthanasia, there is no moral difference between killing
and letting die. Those who cling to this supposed distinction
actually show scant regard for the sanctity of life.
Dr David Shaw, Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs,
University of St Andrews, Scotland
