Ruth Wishart: Assisted dying should be a right for in pain

In the first instance, self-ID and trans rights became a front-bench rallying cry ­until, all too predictably, predators as ­opposed to innocent trans folk decided to take a len o’ them.

In the second, we have the populace overwhelmingly in favour of assisted dying while in both Holyrood and Westminster legislators are urging caution.

Down by, much is being made of the volte-face by Health Secretary Wes ­Streeting, who has now decided to oppose a law ­championed by Charlie Falconer in the Lords and Kim Leadbeater in the ­Commons. Previously Streeter had ­pronounced ­himself agnostic.

READ MORE: Owen Jones: Speaking to American voters, it's clear why the Democrats lost

Up here, the summertime consultation exercise asking for views threw up almost three times as many people in favour as ­opposed. The views, not unexpectedly, were those of people wanting to avoid ­unnecessary suffering for themselves or family members and pleading for personal dignity, and those who thought only the almighty had the right to decide how and when we die.

While I have every sympathy with people of an unshakeable faith, I’ve never thought their beliefs should be offloaded onto people who don’t share them. If their god is the loving variety as usually promoted, I don’t imagine he or she takes pleasure in watching humans coping with the kind of agonising pain, palliative medicine cannot yet address.

There are campaigners against new laws who also qualify as national ­treasures whose track record – quite literally in the case of Baroness Tanni ­Grey-Thompson – affords them a powerful voice. Her fear is that any assisted dying legislation would ­adversely impact the disabled ­community.

Others are concerned that elderly folks might go before their time to avoid being “a burden” to their relations or, worse still, that those relations might bully them into premature decisions.

To take these in turn, the disabled ­community, like any other, does not speak with one voice.

My friend Melanie Reid, a ­journalist who is now tetraplegic after a riding ­accident, has spoken on several occasions about her right to decide when enough is enough. She reiterated again just last month that only she could legitimately ­decide what was bearable for her.

As it happens, as she wrote, both her own parents decided separately, and for different reasons, to take their deaths into their own hands.

The second argument is certainly more complex. But it takes a dismal view of ­humanity to suppose that the world is populated by lots of people anxious to bump off members of their own family or be otherwise rid of them for entirely ­selfish reasons.

(Image: Getty)

The story this last week of the rogue GP who tried to poison his mum’s boyfriend to protect his inheritance is, thankfully a rare one. And he now has the thick end of a 31-year prison ­sentence in which to contemplate his greed and folly.

Most of the respondents to the Scottish Government’s consultation exercise flagged up their personal experience of having to stand by and watch someone they loved die the way nobody would want. But even those spared that awful ordeal are now overwhelmingly in favour, it appears, of giving people agency over their own end of life. And that is so on both sides of the Border.

Interestingly, none of the countries which have pioneered assisted dying have seen fit to reverse their legislation. And none have reported a large spike in self-chosen dying.

There have been several attempts in the UK by terminally ill or disastrously ­limited individuals to try to change the current laws. They were all rebuffed even when their own partners, daily witness to their distress, supported their decision.

Instead, we have settled for the worst of all worlds, insisting that those who – like Esther Rantzen – publicly demand the right to die at home rather than having to spend their final hours with strangers in Switzerland. Which doesn’t of course take account of the fact that for many thousands of sufferers, the Swiss option is simply unaffordable.

From time to time, people – often ­palliative care staff– argue that more ­money should be poured into their efforts and into research into pain relief. And they are right of course, but whose breath is being held at the moment for hefty funds to be allocated in that direction?

In any case, round my way, there’s ­little point in anyone referring themselves to a sympathetic GP since what is now on ­offer is an ever-changing cast list of locums. They are not, of course, ­incompetent, but it somewhat argues against continuity of care or the capacity to build a personal relationship with the caregiver. I gather this is far from being an unusual state of affairs.

The other day, it was reported that folk from the Western Isles would now be treated in Falkirk rather than Inverness for an indeterminate period. Imagine, if you will, being sufficiently unwell to plump for treatment many hundreds of miles away in a town which is nowhere near a central Scotland airport. ­Normally they would fly to Inverness. Nothing much seems normal any more.

The assisted dying bills are at different stages in Holyrood and Westminster, and, not for the first time, it seems we are at least slightly ahead of the game. I hope the bill suggested by the LibDem MSP Liam McArthur (below) finally makes it onto the statute book.

(Image: PA)

His supporters argue – as they do in ­England – that the legislation is festooned with very many safeguards in terms of not having very much longer to live and the medical profession being ­heavily involved. They say this prevents any ­slippery slope to more widespread facilities to determine the time and ­manner of death.

Actually, though, I remain unpersuaded that imminent death should be the only measure of an acceptable rationale. Sadly, there are many conditions which are not necessarily life-threatening, but which make for a miserable existence.

Some people, and some of their loved ones, will continue to argue that including other kinds of incapacity would be wholly dangerous. I understand where they’re coming from.

But as a person without a faith – in stark contrast to my parents – I remain convinced that nobody else should be ­allowed to second guess what is tolerable for you.

READ MORE: SNP must get their 'act together' says John Swinney ahead of council by-elections

My mother, a woman of strong religious convictions, asked me to end her life when the pain became too great to bear. I couldn’t of course. But someone else might have been able to let her go with more dignity and less agony.

Just as my local veterinary surgery felt able to say that my last dog should be allowed to go before she became more ill and more exhausted. It seems we are more able to extend essential compassion to our pets than to our families, a point which was also forcibly made in response to the Scottish Government’s consultation.

If it “shouldn’t happen to a dog” it shouldn’t happen to a human being ­either.

I wish a fair wind to Charlie Falconer, Kim Leadbeater, and Liam McArthur.

No health professional will have to be involved if their conscience dictates ­otherwise. But neither should the rest of us be held to ransom.