We support patient autonomy and work to protect patients from the imposition of other people's personal religious views.
There is widespread support amongst the public for a compassionate law that permits assisted dying under certain circumstances.
But religious lobbying exerts a disproportionate influence on the debate on assisted dying, frustrating much-needed reform.
Assisted dying (AD) is when a person chooses to be given help to die, usually because they are terminally ill and suffering unbearably.
AD is legal in a growing number of countries around the world. In all these jurisdictions there are strict guidelines and safeguards to ensure AD is not misused. Where AD is an option, it complements palliative care rather than replacing it.
AD is not explicitly legal anywhere in the UK. Terminally ill people who wish to end their suffering more quickly have very few options.
Travelling to a country where their death can be assisted legally isn't a viable option for most, due to the high expense and the difficulties in travelling with a terminal illness. What's more, friends and relatives who accompany or help someone travel abroad for AD may be prosecuted.
Terminally ill people in the UK may therefore resort to taking their own life, leading to botched suicides, or asking the help of loved ones. This puts friends and relatives in a horrendous position: either they must watch their loved one suffer, or they must help them die and risk jail in the process.
The largest poll ever conducted on assisted dying found 84% of people in Britain support a change in the law. This includes 82% of Christians and 90% of nonreligious people.
Many regard refusing people a final relief from unbearable suffering as a harmful act. But strong opposition to AD comes from religious leaders who think AD goes against the will of their gods.
We support the democratic right of all people to contribute to the debate on AD. But policy decisions should be guided by evidence, compassion and respect for the principle of patient autonomy, rather than religious dogma. The views of the general public, professionals and relevant organisations should be fairly reflected at policy level.
Within the National Secular Society, individual members hold a range of views about AD. All are agreed that religious privilege should have no place in the decision-making process.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to support properly regulated assisted dying.
2. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Big majority of disabled people support assisted dying for the terminally ill
Posted: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:34
Just 8% of disabled people surveyed in a new Yougov poll for Dignity in Dying believe that disability rights groups should maintain their opposition to assisted dying.
The first survey of disabled people specifically focused on assistance to die for the terminally ill also finds that 79% support Lord Falconer's recently-introduced assisted dying bill.
The poll was launched by Disabled Activists for Dignity in Dying (DADiD), a group set up by Dignity in Dying and coordinated by disabled people, campaigning for those who have terminal illnesses to have the right to choose an assisted death.
The survey found that of 1,036 disabled people asked, 79% support a change in the law to allow the choice of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults within strict legal safeguards. Support dropped by just under a third when asked about support for assistance to die to non-terminally ill people.
The survey also asked disabled people what position they felt disability rights groups should take on assisted dying. 46% believed disability rights groups should remain neutral on the issue, 36% believed they should support assisted dying and just 8% felt the groups should oppose legalising assisted dying for terminally ill people. 74% of those asked would want the choice of assisted dying made available to them if they were facing the end of their lives.
Greg Judge, Co-ordinator of DADiD, said: "This new poll shows that disability rights groups do not always represent the viewpoint of disabled people on all issues. This survey shows that it is time for disability rights campaigning groups to shift to a neutral stance on the issue of assisted dying; reflecting the different and varied views of disabled people in this country rather than dismissing the opinion of the majority as irrelevant.
"This survey finds that there is little difference in levels of support for assisted dying between people with disabilities and non-disabled people, as a previous poll this year found that over three quarters of the general public support this change."
Sarah Wootton, Chief Executive of Dignity in Dying said: "Dying people should not have to suffer against their wishes. Within upfront safeguards they should have choice and control over their own death. The current law, which turns a blind eye to compassionate amateur assistance to die, does not provide adequate safeguards. A new law will safeguard patients, protect family members and ensure the medical profession can be involved. Ultimately, Parliament must act and in doing so take account of the vast majority of people who support change regardless of whether they are religious or disabled."
Appeal Court declines to rule on right-to-die cases
Posted: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:31
The Appeal Court has ruled that it has no power to grant people the right to voluntary euthanasia, and that it is a decision for parliament to make.
The ruling related to Jane Nicklinson (who is continuing a case brought by her late husband, Tony) and Paul Lamb (right) who both suffer from incurable degenerative illnesses that have rendered them catastrophically disabled.
Both Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb, while in sound mind, expressed a desire to end their lives at a time of their choosing in order to end their suffering and die with dignity.
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said:
….The short answer must be, and always has been, that the law relating to assisting suicide cannot be changed by judicial decision. The repeated mantra that, if the law is to be changed, it must be changed by Parliament, does not demonstrate judicial abnegation of our responsibilities, but rather highlights fundamental constitutional principles.
The circumstances in which life may be deliberately ended before it has completed its natural course, and if so in what circumstances, and by whom, raises profoundly sensitive questions about the nature of our society, and its values and standards, on which passionate but contradictory opinions are held. Addressing these life and death issues in relation to life before birth, the circumstances in which a pregnancy may be terminated were decided by Parliament. The abolition of the death penalty following the conviction for murder was, similarly, decided by Parliament. For these purposes Parliament represents the conscience of the nation. Judges, however eminent, do not: our responsibility is to discover the relevant legal principles, and apply the law as we find it. We cannot suspend or dispense with primary legislation. (paras 154 – 155)
The Court also considered an appeal in the "Martin" case, brought by a man who wishes to end his life but needs the assistance of a third party. He argued that it should be lawful for a doctor or nurse to help him travel abroad to die with the help of a suicide organisation in Switzerland. In this case, the appellant was successful in seeking clearer guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for carers or health professionals assisting those wishing to end their life.
His main submission was that whilst the DPP's policy provided the necessary degree of clarity for what he described as "class 1 helpers" (spouses, friends or family with emotional ties to the person committing suicide, the policy was defective in that it failed to give adequate clarity as to another group, which he described as "class 2 helpers" ((those with no emotional ties to the person committing suicide, such as healthcare professionals).
Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Elias, in their majority judgment concluded that it was not sufficient for the Policy merely to list the factors that the DPP will take into account when deciding whether to consent to prosecution (see para 138). The Policy should give some indication of the weight the DPP accords to the fact that the helper was acting in his or her capacity as a healthcare professional (see para 140).
They said it would be constitutionally improper for the DPP to guarantee immunity from prosecution in respect of any class of helpers (see para 142). Further, it would be impractical, if not impossible, for the DPP to lay down guidelines which would embrace every class 2 case but that it is not impossible or impractical to amend the Policy so as to make its application in relation to class 2 cases more foreseeable than it currently is (see para 144).
Read the judgment here
Source: UK Human Rights blog
