“EFFECTIVE ARGUMENTS DR JOHN FLEMING “

Begin by urging MPs to leave emotion and emotional stories (which cannot be independently verified) at the door.  This is a public policy debate with major implications for the criminal law’s general prohibition against killing the innocent.

Insist that euphemisms not be used and that the clear meaning of words be employed.  Thus, euthanasia means killing according to all dictionaries.  “Voluntary assisted dying” can mean almost anything but what the bill means is assisted suicide or self-killing.

  1. Where killing is concerned, MPs should remind themselves that their primary role is in making public policy, i.e., protecting the life and security of citizens and the state. It is NOT simply about legislating to impose a personal preference or choice to satisfy one sectional interest.
  2. The rights to life and liberty are inalienable (cf UDHR), rights of which a person cannot be deprived by others or by the state, a right of which a person cannot even deprive himself or herself. This is crucial.  If, for example, someone wants to sell himself as a slave, the money going to support his wife and children at a time of high unemployment, the state will simply not allow it.  If some can give away their right to freedom, even for a good motive, then this exception to the ban on slavery will make it more difficult for the state to protect the right to liberty/freedom of other citizens.  An exception to the criminal law banning the killing of the innocent or assisting in their suicide makes it impossible for the state to carry out its duty to protect the lives of other citizens especially the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.  This fundamental point was identified by Enlightenment scholars such as Thomas Hobbes at a time when the rights of human beings was being considered and codified. [Cf To Kill or Not to Kill, pages 351, 361-364]
  3. From the documented experience of countries that have legalised euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide the evidence shows us that you cannot legislate safe limits around mercy killings. Once the prohibition against killing the innocent is removed for some cases, the evidence shows that as many or more are killed without their knowledge and consent.  This is because there is nobody there independently watching over patients.  Since doctors and nurses are the ones doing the killings or assisting suicides, they are not independent observers.  They are participants and very unlikely to alert authorities to any breach of the law.  Moreover, experience in other countries shows that once you make an exception for certain cases, these exceptions are gradually expanded to include other cases such as children, the demented elderly, the permanently unconscious, and those with mental health issues including those who are just “weary of life” as is the case in The Netherlands and Belgium.  Most of the new cases are not voluntary since the capacity to consent is no longer present. (see pages 364-402 of To Kill or Not to Kill), and especially pages 394-402
  4. In the early days of euthanasia parliamentary debates in the UK, author of a VE Bill Lord Chorley told the House of Lords about his euthanasia Bill. Lord Chorley said: “One objection to the Bill, he said, is that it ““does not go far enough, because it applies only to adults and does not apply to children who come into the world deaf, dumb and crippled, and who have a much better cause than those for whom the Bill provides. That may be so, but we must go step by step”.  (see pages 488-489 of To Kill or Not to Kill).  The reaction to that comment was fatal to any chance of success for Lord Chorley’s Bill.  Consequently, the most vocal supporters of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide now use euphemisms and weasel words to make the unpalatable palatable, and the real agenda covert.  Get “conservative euthanasia and PAS Bills” passed.  Once the principle of doctors killing patients has become accepted, then there will be moves to expand the range of cases to which euthanasia should be applied.  That is exactly what has happened in both Belgium and The Netherlands as my book explains.
  5. Whatever individual MPs consider to be personally morally acceptable, or what opinion polls may seem to favour, does not settle the issue. A responsible Parliament must attend to enunciating public policy which meets the criteria for responsible government, chief of which is the obligation to impartially and objectively pass legislation which secures for all citizens their rights to life and security, and especially for those who are most vulnerable.  Any legislation which weakens the capacity of the state to protect its own must be voted down.
  6. Opinion polls are crude measurements of feeling but not necessarily of informed and morally sound judgment. They cannot be used to justify MPs ignoring their fundamental obligations where the making of public policy is concerned. (see pages 485-488 of To Kill or Not to Kill)
  7. Personal autonomy does not settle the issue either. First, we are talking about the use of autonomy to annihilate autonomy.  Second, an individual’s personal choice must be balanced against the common good.  There is an overriding public interest to be preserved in protecting the rights to life and security of all citizens. (see pages 488-491 of To Kill or Not to Kill)
  8. The medical profession must be protected from itself, and patients protected from the hubris of some doctors who lay claim to be the rightful authors of death as well as the protectors of health. History is littered with evidence of medical aggression, which is why the profession itself has ruled that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are unethical and not to be countenanced by the profession.  Legalising medical killings undermines public confidence in the medical profession.
  9. Especially important are the concerns of indigenous peoples who still live outside of cities and towns. Their history with western medicine has taught them to be very wary of the power and authority of doctors. (see pages 479-484 of To Kill or Not to Kill, and especially 479-482)

 

Post Views : 86