The main issue of this debate is whether the law should allow individuals the right to die or instead regulate and protect their lives from choosing death. Upon examining many aspects of the Assisted Dying Bill (ADB), I conclude that the negative perspectives outweigh the positive ones.

To begin with, a key point of contention is whether doctors can effectively verify that a patient’s consent is genuine and self-determined.¹ Doctors are responsible for ensuring that a person’s decision is not influenced or manipulated by others. They must remain vigilant against societal pressures that could sway a vulnerable individual’s choice. From a legal perspective, it is crucial to adopt a conservative approach, ensuring clear procedures and guidelines.

Secondly, critics of the bill argue that it poses a threat to the fundamental right to life.² The options provided under the Assisted Dying Bill may fail to sufficiently protect individuals from choosing death due to external pressures or insufficient support. Disabled individuals and those lacking adequate resources could disproportionately opt for assisted dying, exacerbating societal discrimination. Before implementing such legislation, we must first address and strengthen the support systems available to disadvantaged groups.

Additionally, life expectancy predictions are inherently unreliable and could be undermined by unexpected improvements in the patient’s condition. Doctors who are not specialists in terminal care may provide mistaken diagnoses.³ Furthermore, advancements in treatments and medications could alter prognoses, making the "six-month" criterion for terminal illnesses increasingly ambiguous.

While the Assisted Dying Bill aims to support the right of individuals to choose death, its societal implications raise concerns for vulnerable populations, and the procedures remain unproven in their ability to adequately protect patients’ rights. I argue that before proceeding with such legislation, it is essential to establish clear guidelines and robust legal protections to ensure the process safeguards all individuals involved.

To strengthen my stance against the legalization of assisted dying, I have explored detailed arguments. The central issue concerns the potential misuse of safeguards and the prescription process for Assisted Dying Bill (ADB) procedures, including the side effects of the treatments currently used in euthanasia.

Ineffectiveness and Misuse of Safeguards

Disability Rights Organisations (DROs) argue that the proposed safeguards in the ADB process are ineffective and susceptible to abuse.⁴ Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms have not yet been adequately addressed in the legislation. I argue that without guarantees for effective safeguards, the potential for misuse and improper application of assisted dying raises significant ethical and legal concerns.

Concerns Regarding Barbiturates

In the UK, assisted dying involves the administration of barbiturates under a doctor’s prescription. Large doses of barbiturates⁵ affect the brain, halting respiratory functions and causing death. However, research published in the New England Journal of Medicine⁶ highlights complications such as extended time to death, instances of patients awakening during induced comas, and prolonged procedures that leave patients in distress. Additional side effects, including severe pain and seizures, have also been reported, raising questions about the reliability of this method.

Conclusion

The Assisted Dying Bill cannot yet address or verify the long-term adverse effects within the medical system. More research and comprehensive guidelines must precede any legislation to ensure safety and efficacy. Proceeding without guaranteed treatment protocols would be irresponsible, particularly for patients already suffering. To ensure a safe and dignified process, more robust medical examinations and procedures must be established to minimize side effects and ensure a quick and peaceful passing for patients.

References

1. John Wyatt, “What’s wrong with the assisted dying bill” (Care, 8 July 2021) https://care.org.uk/cause/assisted-suicide/whats-wrong-with-the-assisted-dying-bill accessed 21 February 2022
2. Philip Lewis, “Assisted Dying Bill [HL]” (Lords Library, 8 October 2021) https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/assisted-dying-bill-hl/ accessed 22 February 2022
3. Ibid
4. Box, G., & Chambaere, K., “Views of disability rights organisations on assisted dying legislation in England, Wales and Scotland: an analysis of position statements” (2021) Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12), E64-E64. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107021
5. Betty Chaar and Sami Isaac, “Euthanasia drugs: What is needed from medications for assisted deaths?” (The Conversation, 20 October 2017) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-20/assisted-dying-what-is-need-from-drugs-for-voluntary-euthanasia/9069896 accessed 23 February 2022
6. John Wyatt, “What’s wrong with the assisted dying bill” (Care, 8 July 2021) https://care.org.uk/cause/assisted-suicide/whats-wrong-with-the-assisted-dying-bill accessed 20 February 2022