Nauman Ahmad Hadi, Missionary, Wakalat Tasneef, UK
The Holy Prophetsa said that there is no disease for which Allah has not created a cure. (Mishkat al-Masabih, Kitab at-tibb wa al-riqq, al-faslul awwal, Hadith 4532)
According to this principle, it is only a matter of time until humans are able to cure more and more illnesses; this has indeed been the case of human development throughout history. Centuries ago, medicine was not as advanced as it is today. Today, even cancer treatment is getting better and we should be hopeful that a time will come when those illnesses which can spell death will be easily curable too.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its second reading in the British Parliament on 29 November 2024. At the time of writing this article, the debate is still intense. Now, this bill is set to become law – meaning that mentally competent adults with six months to live can choose to end their life. It should come as no surprise that we have entered a new era. Assisted dying has never been an acceptable practice – until now.
Now that MPs have voted in favour of this law, criticisms are not as potent as they would have been a week ago. But it is nevertheless still not only necessary to equip ourselves with those arguments but also to understand which groups have been pushing for a change in law.
The role of ‘Dignity in Dying’
Dignity in Dying, the charity behind the lobbying for assisted dying, was founded in 1935. Interestingly, until early 2006, this charity was called ‘The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society’. (“Voluntary Euthanasia Society changes name after 70 years to become Dignity in Dying”, www.dignityindying.org.uk)
Dignity in Dying has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in the last months alone promoting their cause. Some of their advertisements were placed in strategic London underground stations which are frequented by the political class. One particular advert depicts a young person celebrating jubilantly with the words “My dying wish is that my family won’t see me suffer, and I won’t have to”.
This advert alone spells out not only the sinister nature of the bill, but also what the future objectives might be. If the aim is to change the law to allow for those with severe illnesses – who are in the final moments of their life – to hasten their end, then why use the youth to promote such messaging? It almost says that every young individual should be looking forward to this. Such imagery can only conjure up a society that is looking ahead to a dystopian future.
Where do we draw the line?
Against the backdrop of lobbying characterised by such messages, there are numerous important matters that are still yet to be clarified. In the question of assisted dying, one of the most grave is simply: where do we draw the line?
If the argument is that people should have dignity in death and not suffer the indignities of one’s final days, then we must counter-argue that there is no dignity in the process of birth either – it’s the law of nature. The manner in which humans are brought into this world is far from painless. Indeed, it is harrowing.
Death is a sombre moment, where owing to human nature all manner of weaknesses manifest themselves. Inversely, we find that birth is also not a dignified process – it is one of the most painful experiences a woman can experience. Do we then abandon the entire idea of childbirth?
Furthermore, the compassion argument – that it is more compassionate to help someone end their own life rather than suffer, which has been key in this entire campaign—indirectly assumes that not only is there no hope now, rather for those illnesses which are very difficult to treat, there will not be much hope later. It says the government has given up.
If the question is that assisted dying is based on compassion, then I simply ask that is it more compassionate that a bill is passed allowing those who are in pain to die, or is it more compassionate to make strides to improve medicine? Legalising assisted dying says that the society we live in has tried everything humanly possible, all the machinery of state, the centuries-old tradition of medicine, has failed and shall always fail. It is simply telling terminally ill people that there is nothing more that can be done.
The slippery slope of assisted dying
Of course, the fear is that though the bill argues that mentally competent adults with only six months to live will be given the choice to end their life, it can be argued that why not offer assisted dying to those who are certain (well in advance of any illness) that their life, and consequently their death, shall be one of indignity?
If the argument is that a terminally ill person should have the choice to end their life – what about when you see an illness creeping upon someone? Should one see a dark cloud approaching and know deep down that such an illness will not only be terminal but also horrific – should a person end his life at that point? Why wait till the clock leaves only six months or a year? Should someone, who may have more than a year to live, suffer the first six months or so in agony?
This is precisely the slippery slope that everyone had been warning about; it is in fact the well-known “slippery-slope” argument that has been made since the founding of Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society in 1935.
Societal effect
There is also the risk of trends developing. If terminally ill people who face a particular illness all choose assisted dying, that disease may set a trend, that a large percentage of people who suffer from the disease end up choosing assisted dying. What message does this send to those newly diagnosed with the same illness?
This is why assisted dying will not be limited to those who are terminally ill. This is the fear now that the bill has passed. There is a great danger that those who want to end their life, for any reason, will have a way to do so. The health service of any state has the primary purpose of protecting life. With assisted dying now legal, could we see similar scenarios where elderly or sick individuals feel compelled to end their lives, either to avoid being a financial burden or due to external pressures?
This is particularly troubling when we consider the impact on families, who may prioritise financial stability over the well-being of a loved one. Assisted dying might inadvertently create an environment where the elderly and vulnerable are pushed toward ending their lives, even when they may not genuinely wish to do so.
Conclusion
Thus, it is perhaps the most vulnerable in society that will suffer. We know harrowing accounts during the Coronavirus pandemic of elderly parents or grandparents being hospitalised with Covid, being so stricken by poverty, that they asked their families to not spend any money on life-saving equipment like oxygen tanks. What makes us think that this will not occur here?
It is incredibly unfortunate that this bill has passed. Sadder still is that there has been joy at its passing in certain pockets of society. Society needs to pause, take a look around and ask, over the recent years, have we not become more dystopian?