A nightmare versus a dream

The fact that the Conservatives won't oppose Zac Goldsmith in the by-election for Richmond Park says it all. What more eloquent testimony could there be for their lack of conviction that "this is the right thing for the country", as Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, has adopted as his mantra? If it is, then make the case so persuasively that the residents of Harmondsworth, Harlington, Sipson, Longford, and Richmond vote for you. See how those directly affected by the environmental pollution vote. They might agree.

Photo : Premier org.uk

The project will apparently generate employment for thousands and billions of pounds of national wealth. What's not apparent is why this proposal would generate more than any others - except perhaps in demolishing 950 homes and resettling their occupants, presumably in places not of their choosing, and bulldozing an ancient church and village green. As too often with current governmental decisions, the public rationale is financial and not human. Value for money is elevated above quality of life. There is the implicit accusation of selfish nimbyism. "Take a hit for the rest of us" has been the political philosophy of the past couple of administrations, addressed to the most vulnerable within society - the easiest to target.

However, it's all very well to be negative. What better solution is there? The London airport commission, we are told, thoroughly examined the alternatives and ruled in favour of a third Heathrow runway. Clearly I've not read the report, but I strongly suspect that its overriding criteria were economic. Reluctant though I am to admit any merits in one of Boris Johnson's madcap dreams, I do in fact think that his Thames Estuary island scheme was the most visionary. A brand new hub airport with approaches over the sea and 21st-century infrastructure into London would of course cost more than building an extra runway, but as the Transport Secretary has been at pains to affirm it would be provided by private finance. And the human cost would be far less. Maybe it would impinge on the good burgers of Essex and Kent, were the flight paths badly delineated. Yet one could envisage an eventual reduction in the impact of Heathrow as it ceased to be the hub airport for London, the UK and the world.

I recall the days when there were soundings for a new London airport in rural Buckinghamshire (for example at Wing). Fortunately those were binned. Hopefully Heathrow's third runway will go the same way, and Boris Island will rise from the waves. Now that would be a small legacy to offset the disaster of Brexit.

In the public eye

I really don't enjoy being in the public eye, but Jane and I were on Channel 5's evening news tonight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=227RAHqVDiA#t=12. We'd been interviewed about assisted suicide, which is in the UK news again because there's an appeal case before the Supreme Court basically seeking to legalise the practice for some. It's really a continuation of the Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb case, arguing for doctors killing an incapable terminally ill patient who wants to die because of "necessity".

The filming took about three hours - the clip they edited (well, I must say) played for less than two minutes. I hope it provided some evidence that not everyone with a "terminal condition" and very few disabled people want euthanasia legalised. I think Channel 5 got on to us because of an item we'd done for Yahoo News a couple of months ago which came on line last week. You can see Jane and me and the dogs here: Terminally ill man on why life is our greatest gift (Yahoo). (Jess has since been put down.)

There are many reasons why relaxing our laws to allow even a limited intentional taking of life is a bad idea. But they of course lack the emotional punch and sentimental appeal of horror stories. For myself I am always slightly suspicious of highly coloured accounts of personal suffering. They seem to me to be attempts to persuade by-passing the intellect. Of course the end of life is an emotional subject, and emotion should play its part, but if we abandon reasoned discussion we make ourselves prey to all kinds of prejudice and irrationality.

So what are my reasons for devoutly hoping that the nine Supreme Court judge reject this latest assault on the sanctity of life? Here are some notes.

Unintended consequences

I don't suppose the legislators who, acting from the best of motives, brought in the Abortion Law foresaw that it would become a charter for disposing of many thousands of babies with Down's Syndrome or a cleft palate.

Hard cases

Make bad laws. Our system combines case law and legislation. The place for considering ethical issues as hard and complex as this is Parliament, not the law courts.

Compassion?

Yes, I have compassion for people in pain and disabled and terminally ill. Tony Nicklinson said to me the difference between himself and me was that I could commit suicide if I wanted. It's not actually true. But compassion doesn't really mean killing someone. It means sticking with them through pain. It means relieving their symptoms and minimising their pain. It means good palliative care.

Prof Hawking's "pet" theory ("You would let your dog suffer") is one quarter right, three quarters wrong. We had Jess put down because her life was miserable, but also because she became doubly incontinent, was likely to incur costly vet's bills, was no longer much fun to have around. 3 of 4 reasons were to do with our discomfort, not hers.

Defence of the vulnerable

I'm not concerned for myself - although I don't look forward to the process of dying - but I am concerned for the vulnerable, the disabled who don't have a voice, the depressed, for the elderly who are at risk through dementia or frailty - for those who are increasingly regarded as a burden on their families, on society, on our nation's resources. It's those people our laws should protect. The court case seems to me to be about people who are far from vulnerable. They actually are strong-willed, if desperate, and well supported.

Hippocratic oath v necessity

As I understand it, one request in this case is for health professionals (such as doctors and carers) to be allowed to take someone's life or to assist in their suicide: so for example allowing my doctor to administer a lethal injection at my request. That opens the door to doctors ceasing to be healers and carers, and becoming dealers in death. That is one of the most valuable safeguards in the DPP's Guidelines on Prosecution in respect of Assisted Dying. I guess that's why the BMA is against a change in the law.

As events proved, there was no necessity for a doctor to end Tony Nicklinson's life. He could refuse treatment and ask for only symptom control and pain relief.

Discriminatory

All of us may refuse treatment: none of us may demand treatment. To allow one class - ie. paralysed - to demand would discriminate against others and set a precedent for any to demand "treatment" as we wished.

Justice and mercy

The present Suicide Act protects the absolute primacy of life - but allows room for mercy with the discretion of prosecutor, judge and jury. It has worked, and it isn't broken. Don't try and change it.

Fear

The disabled fear a change in the law. We feel at risk. We don't want to be endangered.

Many ageing people fear it. The majority of elder abuse takes place in the home or in care homes.

The campaign for euthanasia encourages fear. It feeds on our natural fear of pain, of dying and of the unknown. And it fuels that fear.

Fear is toxic to a healthy society.

Rights

Rights only come with responsibilities. My right to life, or to death, can't be isolated. If my demanding the right to die endangers the lives of others, then my responsibility to them trumps my choice.

'My life'

Actually life isn't our possession. We are part of life.

Religion

Everyone has a philosophy of life. Mine informs my view, just as anyone else's affects theirs. However, my objections are pragmatic. I'm concerned about the consequences of eroding the law for our society. I'm concerned about cheapening life - reducing it to a commodity. I'm concerned about protecting the vulnerable. I don't want our country to go the way of Belgium, where they're moving towards euthanising children, or of Holland when we could face 13,000 assisted suicides a year. I'm concerned that we never see euthanasia as an easy way to reduce our NHS and care costs.