Ian Geary examines how the assisted dying bill does not entirely align with traditional Labour Party values. 28/11/2024
Tomorrow, the House of Commons has the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The bill has generated much comment, and readers will be well acquainted with the general objections from the bill’s lack of safeguards to bleak evidence from the international context.
Some of that comment – especially last weekend – has been around the role of religious faith in objections to the bill. As a Christian, I entirely support the right of believers to comment on this topic, even with explicitly theological reasons should they so wish. However, as a lifelong Labour supporter, I want to reflect not on the religious arguments but on – so to speak – the other end of the spectrum. I want to argue that the bill does not align entirely comfortably with traditional “secular” or “progressive” Labour values, which some in my party profess to adhere to.
The Labour Party is (putatively) the party of solidarity with the working class, still institutionally true by virtue of its organic link with the trade union movement. It has long been perceived as the party of social justice, with a particular care for the poor and vulnerable. Imperfectly so, certainly, yes but the association exists and this matters.
The potential consequences of this bill risk undermining this association, leading to an adverse impact on citizens from vulnerable backgrounds, in particular the poor, the disabled, and the working–class. Recent evidence from Canada pointed to the impact of the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation in Ontario and the fact that 29% who were ‘euthanized’ for conditions considered ‘non–terminal’ came from poorer areas, and led some to conclude that – in non–terminal cases – poverty is a material factor leading to this outcome. This has nothing to do with compassionately ending someone’s life to end unbearable suffering.
When ‘end of life’ becomes an option, the grim reality is that the poor, disabled, mentally ill and elderly risk being coerced into a decision to end their life – as again, Canada’s MAiD programme of euthanasia has shown. In other words, there is a class component at play.
This approach to the issue invariably draws in the wider discourse around choice. The last time this matter was debated by MPs, ‘choice’ was mentioned 47 times during the debate and Rob Marris MP, the Bill’s sponsor stated that, “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.” As Nick Spencer observed in an earlier Theos blog, this remains a key argument this time round. “All I’m asking for is that we be given the dignity of choice,” Esther Rantzen has remarked.
On the surface this sounds reasonable. However, the underlying assumptions behind the statements call for scrutiny. What constitutes harm to others? Does choice always drive the good? And who really has choice? The vulnerable and suffering, or the powerful and professional?
It is ironic, to put it mildly, for those on the left to draw heavily on the argument from choice given how ‘choice’ is the register of the free market. (In the light of this, it is also ironic that the bill is being debated on ‘Black Friday’, a new festival of, and stimulus for, consumer choice). The market is encroaching everywhere. Choice – posited as an apparently unalloyed agent of consumerism – requires explanation in its given context.
The choice for some to buy and sell might seem an unalienable right. But the logic of the market does not fit well with the values of the left: solidarity, fellowship, social justice and care irrespective of financial value. We need to consider the necessity of limits to the power of the market so the choices of others, i.e. the powerful, do not impinge on the weaker members of society. In fact, choice is normatively posited as an individual, rather than a collective act. As Bishop Graham Tomlin said is his opinion piece in The Times on 23 November, choice is not the final word on ethical matters, no matter how strong ones convictions might be.
However strong the popular association between legalising assisted dying and progressive politics may be, it is striking how many prominent Labour figures, such as Gordon Brown and Diane Abbott, have come out against the bill. The fact points to there being another way for the left here, a more authentically ‘Labour’ approach to assisted dying, which is to fund high–quality palliative care and grant it the esteem it deserves. Earlier this year, the All–Party Parliamentary Group on Hospice and End of Life Care in their report, ‘Government Funding for Hospices’ called for strategic action stated that, “the UK Government must produce a national plan to ensure the right funding flows to hospices.” Gordon Brown has made a similar call this past weekend. This is surely the way forward at this juncture.
As I noted earlier, many people oppose this bill on religious grounds. They have every right to do so. Christian beliefs underpin my approach also. However, the potential drawback with this approach is that it ends up subtly ‘bifurcating’ views on the issue – anti = the religious, along with some fellow travellers; pro = the secular, the progressive, the Left. This is not the case. It needs to be stated that the case for assisted dying is no more intrinsically progressive than that against it is narrowly religious. As a Christian and a Labour party member, I believe the left should reject an approach based simply on ‘choice’ and see its way to protecting the poor, honouring social justice and in ensuring that our fellow citizens, when faced with their life’s final season, are supported towards a good and compassionate death.
Interested in this? Share it on social media.
Join our monthly e–newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Supporter Programme to find out how you can help our work.
