THE END OF LIFE CHOICE REFERENDUM - 8

‘A SLIPPERY SLOPE’

The Act clearly says that it is meant for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and not for people with mental illness alone. However, the risk is that, as is evident from the experience in other countries, these legislations start with fairly narrow criteria. In a few years, there are some members from other groups who start campaigning that their circumstances should also be included within the criteria of this legislation, for example, people with long-term severe mental illness, people with chronic physical disabilities, and who argue that living with their condition is as ‘painful’ and ‘distressing’ as living with terminal cancer. Before we know it, the legislation is being applied to wider and wider groups of people. 

Health professionals have no right to decide how people should live their lives, or end it. Giving recommendations on leading healthier lives is a completely separate matter. However, we do need to realize that once we embark on this legislation, over a period of time it may result in almost everyone in society asking this question why the government is not allowing them to seek “assisted suicide” and forcing them to live with their ‘unsurmountable’ life difficulties. As one of my patients once put it beautifully, “Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem”. The risk is that if the society is making it too easy for people to end their lives, would they end up making permanent decisions in response to temporary difficulties? Again, a question not for health professionals to answer but for the society to consider.