The Philosophical Case For The UK’s Assisted Dying Bill

By Graham Vanbergen:  The Assisted Dying Bill, as it is now known, is actually the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-25.  There is a difference in this terminology which is abused by the media to gain traction for clickbaiting the wider public negatively on such a sensitive matter. As expected, the Bill is under vigorous and emotional debate, from all sides and has reignited profound discussions about autonomy, suffering, and the ethical boundaries of modern medicine. This debate is nothing new as decades of proponents have testified. Supporters of the Bill argue that it embodies the principles of dignity and compassion, giving individuals the ultimate freedom to determine their end-of-life choices – but only in highly limited circumstances. As we consider this important debate, influential voices from various fields have lent their support, invoking philosophical principles to frame their arguments. Here are some of the voices for the philosophy of compassion.

 

Autonomy: “The Sovereign Self”

Philosopher and human rights advocate Baroness Mary Warnock once remarked, “Autonomy is not simply a right; it is the essence of what makes us human. To deny someone control over the final chapter of their life is to deny them their humanity.” This sentiment underlines the Bill’s philosophical foundation: that individuals should possess the authority to choose a dignified death when faced with unbearable suffering.

Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, echoed this view in a recent interview, stating, “We already honour individual autonomy in healthcare decisions. Allowing assisted dying is a logical and compassionate extension of that respect.” His argument aligns with liberal philosophies, which prioritise personal agency as a cornerstone of ethical decision-making.

 

Compassion: “Suffering as an Unnecessary Burden”

Physician and ethicist Dr. Henry Marsh, a vocal supporter of the Bill, has posed a powerful rhetorical question: “What greater cruelty can there be than compelling someone to endure a life they no longer wish to live?” Marsh, who has grappled with his own terminal diagnosis (see My Death, My Decision), calls for society to move beyond outdated taboos and recognize the moral imperative to alleviate suffering when possible.

Similarly, Professor A.C. Grayling, a leading philosopher, argues: “Compassion is not merely about feeling for others; it is about taking action to reduce unnecessary suffering. To reject assisted dying is to cling to abstract principles at the expense of human lives.” His words draw upon utilitarian ethics, suggesting that the moral worth of actions lies in their ability to reduce pain and enhance well-being.

 

The Social Contract: “Balancing Individual and Collective Good”

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, offers a nuanced theological perspective, stating, “Dying well is as important as living well. A society that values life should also value the dignity of choosing its end, free from undue suffering.” Carey’s position challenges traditional religious opposition, instead framing assisted dying as consistent with compassion and the sanctity of choice.

This perspective resonates with the philosophical concept of the social contract, as articulated by thinkers like John Stuart Mill. Mill’s assertion that “the worth of a state is the worth of the individuals composing it” finds modern relevance in the Assisted Dying Bill, which seeks to align societal structures with the needs and rights of its citizens.

 

Ethical Medicine: “To Do No Harm”

The Hippocratic Oath, often cited in opposition to assisted dying, can also be interpreted as a mandate to prevent harm through the alleviation of suffering. Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, a bioethicist, supports this view: “Medicine’s role is not to preserve life at all costs but to serve the well-being of the patient. Denying someone the right to a dignified death is a profound betrayal of that trust.”

Proponents further point to the legal safeguards embedded in the Bill, designed to prevent abuse and ensure that only those who meet strict criteria can access assisted dying services. These measures, they argue, reflect a thoughtful and responsible approach to integrating end-of-life autonomy into the fabric of medical ethics.

 

A Compassionate Society

At its heart, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill asks society to reconcile two fundamental values: the sanctity of life and the dignity of choice. As the writer Jean-Paul Sartre observed, “Man is condemned to be free.” Freedom, even in the face of mortality, is the ultimate expression of human dignity. The UK now stands at a moral crossroads, with an opportunity to enshrine compassion and autonomy as pillars of a more humane society.

The voices of Baroness Warnock, Dr. Marsh, and others remind us that this decision transcends politics and enters the realm of moral philosophy. As the debate continues, their insights urge us to ask: Can a truly compassionate society deny individuals the right to determine their final act in the circumstances of a certain miserable death? And in the wisdom of Aristotle, “Dignity does not consist in possessing honours, but in deserving them.” To offer the choice of assisted dying may be the greatest honour and responsibility we can bestow upon those who suffer.

 

Humanity

Humanity has meaning. It’s what defines us as a species. It differentiates us from all other known animals. It is also a word for the qualities that make us human, such as the ability to love and have compassion, be creative and innovate like no other species in over 600 million years since animal life started on planet Earth.

The philosophical arguments above are embedded deeply within the meaning of ‘humanity’. But there is another point we should not forget. In many countries, the UK included, we hold the lives of animals dearly to our hearts. So much so that a Vet’s career can be instantly ended (by an act of Parliament) for knowingly allowing an animal to suffer when terminally ill or injured.

That law is unequivocal. “A person with responsibility for an animal may commit an offence if an act, or failure to act, causes an animal to suffer unnecessarily.” We are legally obliged to treat a dog, a cat, or a cow that is terminally suffering, with greater respect and dignity than we do ourselves.

Lastly, nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of the general public, in survey after survey, support the Bill. If the parliamentary vote goes against the Bill – one might question if democracy is working properly – as MPs will not have voted the will of their constituents.

 

 

 

---