A prime example of the sort of thing I was talking about in my two previous posts is the upcoming vote in the House of Commons regarding assisted dying. In fact, not only will many be uninformed about all of the things that impact this topic, I would also argue that much of the discussion actually is centered around things which are not just unknown, but unknowable.
I should start by making clear that in this post I am not talking about the rights and wrongs about assisted dying itself – rather my focus is on whether this sort of thing should be the type of thing that legislation should be addressing at all.
I doubt that anyone would argue strongly against the general principle that taking a life is not something to be condoned, however equally there are some circumstances when – whilst still not a good thing – it could be argued that it is better than the alternatives. Thinking beyond the specifics of assisted dying there are many examples where ending a life can be considered the best option. (for a prime example of the complications around this you only have to look at the fierce debate in the US around the abortion issue in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v Wade)
The fundamental problem in issues like this is that whilst it can be agreed that there should be a “line” where one side of it is deemed OK, the other is deemed not OK. The “line” however is not a simple thing – there are multiple factors which can move a single situation to one side or the other of that “line”. For that reason it seems to me that deciding when a case of assisted dying is OK is something that cannot really be properly enshrined in legislation.
Even the outline of the “rules” that have been suggested seem to be questionable.
“Given less than six months to live” – why six months? who is capable of being that accurate? who knows what might happen in that time?
“Have capacity to make the decision” – surely those without capacity may be more “in need” of such help? going to the root of this current discussion, having capacity does not necessarily equate to being ‘informed’!
“Two independent doctors and a judge” – whilst I understand the thinking behind this is to avoid it being a single point of failure I doubt that it is necessarily a true safeguard. For instance, who chooses the doctors? how many can you try in order to find the two? is one dissenting doctor enough to veto or would that as well be a potential single point of failure.
That doesn’t even begin to address the role of the judge. Whilst the default position is that all judges are impartial there have been studies which show both noise and bias in the judgements that they lay down. (and those have been in matters which are much more objective than this e.g. the length of sentence after the suspect has been found guilty) Although the judges will, most likely, be operating in good faith the way in which they respond to these types of case will depend on their own life experiences and background and beliefs.
It can be seen that those involved – who are the most ‘informed’ by some measures – the family, the doctors, the judges – are still having to deal with some level of uncertainty. Surely those who will vote have nowhere near the level of “informed-ness” to make much more than an emotional decision. Sure, it is a free vote, not along party lines – but that does not necessarily make it a better decision. Sometimes being informed by other who “know better” can be helpful – but in cases like this knowing who actually knows better is a difficult one.