Assisted Dying. The Slippery Slope is here already.

Lord Falconer's Bill on Assisted Dying will be debated this Friday.  This is a bill which evokes strong emotions whichever side you agree with.

For my part I do not support the bill, something I have come under a lot of attack for. Unfortunately these attacks have but strengthened my reasons,  in particular as I am condemned as having no compassion for people such as Tony Nicklinson.

I have a lot of arguments but for the purposes of this post I am going to concentrate on a single aspect: the "slippery slope". As a disabled person this is of particular concern to me.
I have been told very bluntly by strangers in the street "If I were you I'd kill myself". Acquaintances have said that they don't know how I live the way I do and others that they couldn't live if they were "like me".

So it isn't a stretch of the imagination to see that a newly disabled person could easily want to die. It takes time to adjust. But worryingly they would not receive the support they require from many people around them as even subconsciously they would be busy telling them that in their position they'd also rather die. It is a subtle form of pressure.

Of course people reading this are busy thinking "But the bill doesn't apply to disabled people".
Well no, it doesn't.
But the problem is that the "slippery slope" has already started.
Who are the people fronting the argument for assisted dying?
Who are the examples who have convinced people like Lord Carey to change their minds?
Are they terminally ill people who the bill will help?

Well... no. They are disabled people.
We have people like Tony Nicklinson. Or Terry Pratchett.
If people are campaigning and voting on the basis of these examples then in their minds they are already applying assisted dying to other people outside the law: specifically, disabled people.

I wonder what will happen if the bill becomes law but the MPs, Lords and general public then realise that it does not apply to the cases they thought it did.
What will happen when the next Tony Nicklinson comes along and cannot avail himself of the newly passed Assisted Dying Law?

Finally Dignity in Dying repeatedly says this is not about disability but just terminal illness.
So I leave you with the foreword on their website from their patron Professor Antony Grayling:

I believe that decisions about the timing and manner of death belong to the individual as a human right. This is especially relevant in cases of terminal illness, painful or undignified unrelievable illness, exhausting old age, and other circumstances where an individual might wish to make the autonomous decision to end his or her life. I further believe that it is wrong to withhold medical methods of terminating life painlessly and swiftly when an individual requests them on the basis of a rational and clear-minded sustained wish to end his or her life.

As long as disabled people are used to front the argument for Assisted Dying, as long as Dignity in Dying includes old age, chronic illness and "other circumstances" as valid reasons, I will worry about the "slippery slope" and oppose the bill.

EDIT: The bill was not passed. But what is most crucial to my points here are the subsequent remarks made by Lord Falconer. He admitted that the reason for the bill was not the relief of unbearable pain for terminally ill patients, but the indignity of having to rely on other people. In other words the difficulties of being newly disabled.
The fear of relying on other people is hugely exaggerated in non disabled people and is what leads to the comments like "if I were you I'd kill myself". Most disabled people do adapt with the appropriate support. This is what should be concentrated on, just as much and importantly as pain relief, not helping people to die instead.
Lord Falconer's comments are below:

The work that has been done in relation to this shows generally it is not the pain, it is not the fact that you can’t relieve pain – that can be dealt with – it is the sense of people losing their independence and being reliant on other people, and there’s a small number of people who whatever you do would find that an intolerable position to be in.

Dignity in Dying finally admitted on the politics show that they agreed with his remarks, the first time that they stopped hiding behind the pretence that their agenda was purely about the relief of physical end of life suffering.

When a life is worth less

A man admits to smothering his wife with a pillow. What happens?
He is admittedly suffering from depression. But if the wife is fit and healthy, that would never be deemed an excuse and it is hard to imagine that he would walk free.
But if the wife is suffering from a progressive and terminal illness, then it is a different story.  Stuart Mungall walked free after claiming it was a mercy killing.

But here is the catch. The day before she was killed, the wife had told a nurse that she was "taking it in her stride". At no point had she indicated that she wanted to end her life. Stuart himself does not claim that she told him to do it. He simply says that he "saw it in her eyes".

At a time when many people are pushing for a change in the law to allow assisted dying, with one option being decisions rendered by the courts, is it any wonder that many disabled people are scared and worried? Warnings of a "slippery slope" are often dismissed as scaremongering. But how can they be when already today disabled people do not receive justice in the courts? As seen here their killers are sympathised with and let off the hook. The mere fact that she was facing a difficult illness and that he was struggling to care for her was enough for him to walk free.

If caring for his wife was so hard then more help should have been given. She should never have been left at the mercy of a man who either put his own wants and needs above hers and took her life for his own convenience or whose mental health was so impaired that her safety was at risk. The fact that this has now been tacitly legalised by the court is deeply disturbing.

The truth is that her life was regarded as less valuable than that of a non disabled person. Otherwise he would have received the same sentence as someone murdering their non disabled spouse. Depression would not normally excuse murder.

The judge praised Stuart's love and devotion in caring for his wife during her "difficult" illness. Astonishingly this appeared to therefore logically imply that he had been acting in his wife's best interests out of love, ignoring the fact that she evidently still enjoyed her life. However a mercy killing is only a mercy killing if the person dying has expressed a wish to die. It is not up to the family or others, including doctors or the courts to decide when a life is worth living. It is up to the person living it.

With assisted dying once again on the table and in view of this sort of case, can we really trust the courts to tell the difference and ensure no one is ever coerced or guilt ridden into this decision?
Will they really make sure the disabled person has received all possible support, including mental health intervention and independent social care to ensure the best possible life?
Will they even be able to recognise the worth and quality of life of a disabled person with very restrictive impairments?
Will they make sure the disabled person is not directly or indirectly being adversely influenced by their loved ones?
Or will their own biased views of what is an acceptable quality of life and an emotional view of the "sacrifice" of families and carers inevitably colour any judgment they might render?