Last month, Councillor Paul Canal explained his opposition to the legalisation of assisted dying. As a Humanist, Paul Kaufman is in favour of giving those suffering the choice
Paul Canal writes movingly about the “unpredictable beauty of life” (Wanstead Village Directory, January 2025 issue). Humanists agree life is precious. The case for assisted dying embodies the most life-affirming values: the dignity of every human life, bodily autonomy and responding to suffering with humanity and compassion – values shared by many, religious or not.
Humanists have campaigned for assisted dying for over 100 years. The first bill was laid before the UK parliament in 1936. Since then, advanced countries around the globe have passed assisted dying laws. The first was Switzerland in 1942, followed by Luxemburg and the US states of Oregon and Vermont in 1997. More recently, laws have been passed in Spain and several other European countries, and in most Australian states.
In his article, Paul Canal expresses fear of undue pressure on vulnerable individuals and that “what begins as a trickle of tragic cases, limited to those in insufferable distress, could, over time, become a flood.” This is simply not borne out by the evidence from countries where the law has been changed.
In 2012, our Supreme Court ruled in the case of Tony Nicklinson that only Parliament could change the law. The current Bill is therefore long overdue. It was introduced by Humanist MP Kim Leadbeater. Speaking at the second reading, she acknowledged the sensitivity of the issues and the passions it arouses. She outlined three cases which underline why reform is needed. One concerned a woman with inoperable throat cancer. It blocked her airways. She suffered unspeakably during the last four days of her life, gasping for air, unable to eat, talk or sleep while her husband looked on helplessly. Her end was predictable. Far from being beautiful, it was ghastly.
This tragic example illustrates the fallacy that the choice lies between better palliative care and assisted dying. Of course, we need better palliative care. But no amount of palliative care could have eased this patient’s suffering. There is no evidence that palliative provision has been adversely impacted in countries with assisted dying laws. On the contrary, we see how just having the debate here has helped focus attention on poor provision.
Kim Leadbeater MP also described a botched suicide, and a patient forced to travel alone to Dignitas, further examples of why a compassionate, regulated framework for the terminally ill is so badly needed.
Paul Canal cites two personal examples where, with hindsight, he believes assisted dying would have been the wrong choice. Those opposed to assisted dying will not have to take advantage of it. But they have no right to deny the rest of us the choice.
Paul Kaufman is a Wanstead resident and chair of the East London Humanists. For more information, visit wnstd.com/elh
