| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.24 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): I trust that the House will not feel that there is a lack of compassion on any side of the argument about such a dreadful and painful subject. Many of us have had experiences similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), either directly in our own families or on the periphery of decisions to turn off life-sustaining machines. Therefore, no one should be seen as lacking compassion.
I find it strange that, having explained the present position in law, my hon. Friend suggested that legislation was required. Even in the case that he cited, the House of Lords has made the position quite clear. If a doctor administers medicine to alleviate pain and suffering and that results in the shortening of a person's life--although that does not necessarily happen--it is not euthanasia or murder. Much depends on the intent of the person administering the medicine.
If one considers the argument from a religious point of view, different people will have different attitudes. I understand that a practising Christian will not convince an agnostic or an atheist, but what is the role of the state? How do we govern ourselves and our society?
We have already outlawed capital punishment and said that it is wrong. It is now being proposed that the state should regulate a death industry in another way by passing such legislation. I immediately concede that the motive is entirely different, but we would be legislating on how people should die, and that is a dangerous thing to do. [Interruption.] Hon. Friends around me say that we have a right to die, but I am not sure whether I accept that argument, because rights normally assume duties. What is the duty incumbent on the right to die?
I accept that we shall all face death at one time or another, but have we the right to ask other people to help us die? Have people a duty to help others to die? If there is no such duty--and no one would argue that there is--has an individual the right to say, "Although I do not have a duty to do so, I volunteer to help you to die"? What is the position of a doctor--or anyone else such as an uncle, an aunt or a cousin--volunteering to help someone to die? That right would not relate to a person's status--it would be inherent.
It is significant that the British Medical Association and all the medical societies say that it would be quite wrong for a doctor to seek to assist a person to die. I believe
that they have taken the right attitude. However, there are other arguments. Such debates usually mention the Dutch experiment, which is often portrayed as humane, interesting and special--something that could be adopted if we were properly liberal. Yet in 1990, when the Dutch Attorney-General had an inquiry, he found that of the 3,300 registered deaths by euthanasia, more than 1,000--nearly a third--had not been requested by the patient.
That is the real danger that we enter when people take upon themselves the right to decide for others whether they will live or die. There is a slippery slope and sadly, it concerns not only people who are terminally ill but people who are mentally and physically disabled, and even old people. It also concerns questions such as: who will benefit from auntie's will? Those are the real dangers in such legislation.
Finally, I think that my hon. Friend has missed the developments in palliative care that have taken place. Nowadays there is no need for anybody to die in agony. Developments in medical care have shown that to be the case. The proportion of 5 per cent. has been referred to. That 5 per cent., too, need not die in pain. The evidence is there.
When we listen to my hon. Friend's case, we must put aside our religious and other standpoints and ask ourselves whether we really want the state to decide who will live and who will die--a death industry to decide. Do we want to start on the slippery slope that makes the right to live dependent on the often selfish ideas and indulgences of other individuals? Do we really think it better for people to be put in a position in which they may be under pressure to want to die?
I do not think that we want that sort of society. It is a denial of our human dignity and our ability to face problems and overcome them rather than taking what some would regard as a coward's way out and saying, "Let's put an end to it all." Instead, let us look at ways of ending people's fear.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):--
The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 234.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and assistance. Last night in the Aye Lobby the roof began to leak. It leaked through the electric lighting apparatus, thus causing the common risk found in industrial premises where electricity is mixed with water: the risk of fire. Anyone who knows anything about industrial safety knows how dangerous that is.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |