Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-11
Topic: Social Welfare
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): No, I said I could not take any more interventions Let me quote from a report by Barbara Coombs Lee, published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, entitled "Oregon’s experience with aid in dying: findings from the death with dignity laboratory". Barbara Coombs Lee declared no conflict of interest when she submitted that paper, although I have to tell Members that she is involved with Compassion & Choices in Denver Colorado. The paper was published in July 2014. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, in light of the need for evidence, that you will show me some latitude in quoting not at considerable length, but at a little more length than is usual. She says: "The data set from a variety of sources confirms that those who complete an aid-in-dying request are equally divided between genders and mostly white, well educated, insured"— this is the United States— "and receiving hospice services. Several commentators who articulated concerns about the DWDA— the Dying with Dignity Act or the Oregon Act— "have publicly stated that their fears about abuse of the vulnerable have not materialized. One commented, ‘I was worried about people being pressured to do this. But these data confirm that the policy in Oregon is working. There is no evidence of abuse or coercion or misuse of the policy." Ten years after that Act had been in operation in Oregon, the University of Utah examined its operation and the data arising from it. I quote from it prudently again. The university "found no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with little education, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses or racial or ethnic minorities. The only group disproportionately represented among aid-in-dying patients was people with AIDS." It continued: "The executive director of the disability advocacy group, Disability Rights Oregon testified before the American Public Health Association in 2007 that he had no knowledge of any cases in Oregon to contradict the findings of that report." [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position, "So it is about disabled people." No, it is not about people with disabilities. However, I understand, and so did the author of this report, that there are concerns and that is why that evidence has been looked at, and I seek, as did the author of that report, to allay those concerns Lord George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has said: "There is nothing sacred about suffering, nothing holy about agony, and individuals should not be obliged to endure it." I agree with him When we talk about choice, some hon. Members need reminding of section 1(4) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, for which many Members present today, including me, voted. That subsection states: "A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision." We need to bear in mind that different people faced with the same set of circumstances on occasions make different choices, and at the moment the law in England and Wales has not got the balance right between protection and choice. My Bill would provide more protection, particularly for the living, and more choice. Most of those who would fulfil the criteria in the Bill will, for faith or other reasons, never choose an assisted death. I do not know whether I would, if I had a terminal illness and a prognosis of less than six months, but I and many others would find it comforting to know that the choice was available—to have the option of choosing a dignified and peaceful end at a time and place and in a manner of my own choosing at my own hand There has been a trend in our society, which I support, that if the exercise of a choice does not harm others, in a free society we should allow that choice.