Jersey should reconsider its decision…
Written by: Georgia L Gilholy, a journalist writing in Conservative Home.
Last November, politicians in Jersey voted to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in principle.
This landmark decision, if finalised, would make the Channel island, and the Crown Dependency of 110,000 people, the first-ever British territory to approve such a tidal ethical change.
Euthanasia would be permitted for any “incurable physical condition, resulting in unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated”. Given the vagueness of these guidelines, it is likely that people living with any mental or physical disability qualify for a state-sanctioned death at the hands of trained medical staff.
The proposals thus risk the devastation that is being wreaked on the vulnerable by such laws across the world.
Canada’s Bill C-7 passed in March 2021, opened up euthanasia options to people of any age with disabilities or mental health conditions; Belgian law permits euthanasia to patients in a state of constant physical or psychological pain; in the Netherlands, doctors can secretly sedate patients who have dementia before euthanising them, and euthanasia for anyone over the age of 16 is legal.
Meanwhile, the latest report on Medical Assistance in Dying from Health Canada found that 17.3 per cent of respondents cited “isolation or loneliness” as a reason for wanting to die.
I have already written for this site on my ethical opposition to assisted dying laws. The vulnerable are being failed by society and driven to their premature deaths in droves.
One glimmer of hope in Jersey is that the territory’s government has at least bothered to commission a public consultation on its planned measures, the results of which were published this week.
The report revealed that Islanders do not want to see medical professionals or care homes forced to facilitate assisted suicide.
A thumping majority (85 per cent) of the respondents said they believed healthcare workers should retain the right to refuse to assist in taking someone’s life, while 62 per cent said that owners and operators of care homes should be able to refuse permission for euthanasia or assisted suicide on their premises.
Yet the reality is that, as many religious and civil liberties groups have highlighted, such laws often make it essentially impossible for people with a moral objection to the practice to work in health and care settings.
A survey, published in April by the Catholic Union of Great Britain, already found that almost a third of responders had been disadvantaged at work because of their faith, with health and care settings being some of the worst offenders. Why would euthanasia and assisted dying make this less so?
As the Christian charity CARE has pointed out:
“Assuming that patients should have a right to die would impose on doctors a duty to kill, thus restricting the autonomy of the doctor. Also, a ‘right to die’ for some people might well become a ‘duty to die’ by others, particularly those who are vulnerable or dependent upon others.”
Canada is just one example of this spiralling situation. In its 2021 election the then Conservative leader, Erin O’Toole, u-turned on a pledge to “protect conscience rights of health-care professionals”. In 2019 a guidance documentpublished by the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers stated that:
“…physicians and nurse practitioners … involved in care planning and consent processes have a professional obligation to initiate a discussion about [assisted suicide and/or euthanasia] if a patient might be eligible for [them]”.
It is clear that the instinct of most Jersey voters is on the side of religious liberty, even if there is general support for assisted dying within tight guidelines.
Most people are simply not aware that legalising such plans will make any safeguards difficult or impossible to enforce, as proven by almost every jurisdiction where such laws exist. For Jersey’s health and care workers with convictions that oppose assisted suicide, changing the law could well make life, and making a living, extremely difficult.
The Government of Jersey must not push these concerns aside, as many assisted suicide campaigners might prefer.
Of course, Jersey is not part of the UK, and British politicians will not decide its fate. However, it may soon form a powerful example of the pitfalls of assisted dying, right on Britain’s doorstep. This, along with the results from our own Health and Social Care committee’s consultation on the question, could prove useful as we approach another general election.
The plans may already be provisionally approved, but there is still time for Jersey’s politicians to reconsider. Not only the sake of those whose lives their policies would end, but also of medical and care professionals, whose right to conscientiously object the Islanders clearly wish to respect, but will be very easily eroded.