| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he confirm that, first, suicide has never been a crime in Scotland and, secondly, that as far as he is aware there has never been a prosecution for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring suicide?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that suicide has never been a crime in the law of Scotland. I believe that the reason for that is the same as that which ultimately persuaded the authorities in England to take away that position in England. The difficulty is that for a crime one normally expects some form of sanction to be available; in the nature of suicides, such a thing is not possible. I do not feel able to answer the second question immediately, and I do not think that the committee's report necessarily contains an answer to it.
3.21 pm
Lord Joffe: My Lords, it was a privilege, and, indeed, an education, to be a member of the Select Committee, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who has so meticulously summarised the report. I should like to express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the other members of the Select Committee, all of whom gave up so much of their valuable time to consider my Bill which lapsed at the end of the last parliamentary Session.
In my view, three key recommendations were made by the committee. First, if a Bill similar in nature to the existing Bill were introduced, it should, following a Second Reading, be sent to a Committee of the Whole House for examination. Secondly, while the most careful account must be taken of expert evidence, at the end of the day the acceptability of assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia is an issue for society to decide through its legislators in Parliament. The evidence to the committee was of an apparent groundswell of public agreement with the concept of euthanasia and a shift from opposition by many professionals.
Thirdly, in England and Wales there is a small but significant number of terminally ill patients who, given the choice, would wish to avail themselves of assistance to die in order to bring an end to their unbearable suffering. These were generally patients with strong personalities and a history of being in control of their lives who, to quote the report,
"are unlikely to be deflected from their wish to end their lives by more or better palliative care".
It is only for these patients that assisted suicide was proposed as an option, which they may wish to exercise, and I and other supporters of the Bill have made it crystal-clear in our evidence to the committee that we are totally supportive of palliative care for the overwhelming majority of terminally ill patients and it is misleading for opponents of the Bill to infer otherwise.
In the evidence given to the committee, concerns were expressed about the possible adverse effect of the proposed legislation on vulnerable people and on the medical profession. Inevitably those concerns could only be speculation about what might happen. From the evidence the committee received in Oregon and the Netherlands, it was clear that the same concerns and predictions of abuse of the legislation had been expressed in these countries prior to legislation. Yet, after many years of practical experience, there was no credible evidence that vulnerable people had been put at risk, or that there was a slippery slope, or that the medical profession had been disrupted, or that the ethos of medicine had changed for the worse. It was also clear that, far from palliative care having been undermined, it had flourished since the legislation was passed.
The system that most impressed the committee was that in Oregon, where only assisted suicide is permitted and which is working well. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, will outline in greater detail why the majority of the committee was impressed with the Oregon system. I will accordingly restrict my comments on the Oregon system to a talk at Westminster by Dr Stevens from Oregon given subsequent to the publication of the Select Committee report. Many of the views expressed by Dr Stevens were repeated in an article by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in a Catholic publication called The Universe and by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in a number of public talks without even a reference to the fact that those views were in most respects diametrically opposed to those of all the responsible organisations and researchers who gave evidence in Oregon. In weighing the value, if any, to be placed on Dr Stevens's views, I invite your Lordships to study the evidence given to the committee by Dr Stevens and his close colleagues Drs Hamilton and Toffler and particularly their responses to questions 991 onwards.
I draw attention to the principle of personal autonomy upon which the Bill is based; namely, that competent adults should have the right to make decisions on their own lives, which naturally includes the decision as to when and how they should die. Nobody else—including doctors—should have the right to make such decisions. There is one limitation to this right and that is that in making such decisions, vulnerable members of society should not be placed at risk. The Bill recognised this and incorporated an array of more than 20 interrelated safeguards and was itself far more restrictive and tightly drawn than the legislation in the Netherlands or Belgium and had even more safeguards than that in Oregon.
10 Oct 2005 : Column 18
I realise that I am fast approaching the end of the recommended time for speeches. However, I have been advised by experienced Members of your Lordships' House that, as it is my Bill which is the subject of the committee's report, it would not be unreasonable for me to talk a few minutes longer. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me as this is not a timed debate.
Much of the passionate opposition to this Bill is based on religious beliefs. I naturally respect the religious beliefs of those who express or share those views, although I should add that public opinion surveys show that a massive majority of both Protestants and Catholics do not share the views of their religious leaders on this issue. The question that arises is whether a relatively small minority of society has the right to impose its beliefs on members of society who do not share them. In contrast, this Bill does not seek to impose anything on anybody. It simply provides another end-of-life option which terminally ill patients can accept or disregard as they choose.
I am aware that there is a divergence of opinion among those suffering from disabilities. Public opinion surveys of the disabled show that the majority would support the Bill. I cannot agree with the view of the Disability Rights Commission that although it has no objection in principle to the Bill, it should be delayed until all disabled people have equal rights with the rest of society. I totally support the battle of the disabled for equality and I greatly respect and admire the courage of those with disabilities, in this House and elsewhere, battling for equality for the disabled. But this Bill is not about disability in general, nor about that crucial battle for equality by the disabled. It is about terminally ill patients only, all of whom will be fully protected, to the extent that protection may be necessary, by the safeguards in the Bill.
In the Select Committee, reference was made to evidence given by me to the committee to the effect that the Bill was a first stage and that there was the possibility of subsequent amendment to widen its scope. That evidence was correct. However, when further questioned on that evidence, the report records my answer as,
an answer, incidentally, that has been carefully overlooked by opponents of the Bill. Naturally, the question of future stages will be a matter for future legislators.
I carefully listened to the evidence given at the Select Committee. During its course, I gave notice of a number of amendments to meet concerns that were expressed, including that there will be no obligation on physicians to raise the possibility of assisted dying with patients and no duty on hospices or hospitals to permit assisted dying on their premises. I will include those amendments in a new Bill which I propose to introduce after this debate. When drafting my proposed Bill, I,
10 Oct 2005 : Column 19
naturally, will consider all the matters raised in the Select Committee report, the speeches that are made in this debate and any other feedback that I receive.
In conclusion, the Select Committee report recommended that in any future Bill a clear distinction should be drawn between assisted dying and voluntary euthanasia. Having discussed this recommendation with seven of the 13 members of the committee—a majority—I established that all seven would support the principle of a Bill which limited its application to assisted suicide where the patient takes responsibility for the final stage of ending his or her life. Extrapolating from experience in Oregon, that would be likely to result in about 650 deaths a year. Accordingly, I am minded to recast the new Bill to provide only for assisted dying. I will make a final decision after considering what is said in this debate.
3.31 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |