Ms Margo MacDonald MSP has re-opened the assisted suicide debate again here in Scotland by highlighting the story of her battle with Parkinson’s disease. Given her condition, it is easy to understand why she wants to campaign on this issue and everyone has sympathy for her. However, is this the right time to be debating the subject? Furthermore, is she presenting the issue in the correct way?
Mr Jeremy Purvis MSP, supporter of assisted suicide, has tried on a number of occasions to get this issue debated and has organised his own consultation and public meetings. They proved unsuccessful both with MSPs and with the Scottish public in general. The consultation showed the majority of respondents did not want a change in the law and he failed to persuade enough MSPs to support him, so no Private Members' bill was introduced. Why, then, is another debate beginning? Are those seeking to change the law trying to wear down the Scottish public until they agree with their views? Consultations and public meetings cost time and money. Is this an appropriate way to spend tax payers' money?
Even if the issue is re-debated, Ms MacDonald’s starting point is flawed, going against her own core values and all she has campaigned for her entire political career. She talks about choice and dignity and allowing individuals to make their own decisions. Dignity is, in fact, a very difficult concept to define, but surely it is not just characterised by individual choice. Dignity is not an abstract concept, but manifests itself in respecting people for who they are, not their abilities. Persons do not lose their dignity if they suddenly become ill or dependant on others. Moreover, if the law were to change, the concept of an intrinsic human dignity may be lost forever.
Assisted suicide changes what we mean by society and how society works. It reinforces the belief that individualism is good and we are all islands and no one has responsibility for anyone else. Moreover, physicians are not in favour of assisted suicide. They recognise that with such massive advances in palliative care, patients no longer need to experience the physical suffering that many fear with prolonged terminal illnesses. Assisted suicide is a step too far and opens a can of worms that needs to be kept closed.
Councillor David Balfour (Conservative, Meadows/Morningside) is Director of the Scottish Council for Human Bioethics.
Absolutely! "Dignity is not an abstract concept, but manifests itself in respecting people for who they are, not their abilities. Persons do not lose their dignity if they suddenly become ill or dependant on others". We need to understand that human value is not instrumental (how much they can interact and contribute with society) nor is it capacity-based. Rather human value transcends all these things and at all stages the human person is ontologically prior to its parts and retains its discrete identity and value whatever happens to those parts. D. Nixon
Hmm, there we go again, the deeply sectarian, Christian, and utterly misnamed Scottish Council for Human Bioethics and its minions are at it again. Our conservative Cllr aims to add gravitas to his predictably anti-choice line of reasoning by wheeling in bioethics as opposed to saying 'my religion'. The thing about 'human dignity' is that both the pro-choice as well as the anti-choice campaigners try to take ownership of the term. Neither camp can be proven right or wrong in their respective quests, because there is no agreement on the moral basis of 'human dignity' or its meaning in the context of end-of-life decision-making. That is where this debate ends. 'Human dignity', as I point out in a February 2010 editorial in the journal 'Bioethics' constitutes little other than a kind of 'wooly uplift' in public debate, no more.
Udo Schuklenk, PhD
Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics
Joint Editor-in-Chief Bioethics