My husband wanted to go to Dignitas: the new assisted dying bill wouldn't have helped him

It takes something unusual to get an almost full attendance in the House of Commons on a Friday – and that unusual, potentially epoch-making event was the decisive third reading of Kim Leadbeater's Bill to legalise assisted dying, or as formally entitled, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
I have a particular, and very personal, perspective on this. I believe this Bill, in its original form, and still less as amended, falls very far short of legalising assisted dying for very many of those who might have been pinning their hopes on it.
So limited is its scope, in fact, that it will positively exclude many of those – such as my late husband – who have been the most determined in arguing for a right to choice at the end of life.
The only people empowered to take advantage of the new law will be those judged by doctors to have less than six months to live. That will automatically rule out many, perhaps most, of those with chronic, progressive conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, or – in my husband's case – Parkinson's disease – some of the very people who have been campaigning most passionately for legalised assisted dying.
How many doctors will commit to pronouncing that someone with – say, Parkinson's – has only six months of life left, knowing that this will be a licence for an assisted death? Almost none, I would submit.
The pace of such progressive diseases can be unpredictable. Some, such as Parkinson's, may fluctuate, while always on a downward trajectory. Those with terminal cancer may be among very few able to take advantage of the law change. Even then, the time taken up by panels and paperwork, as required by the Bill, could take up an undue portion of the six months the applicant is deemed to have left.
But let me set out my husband's arguments, which will echo those of many others. He (and I) had watched his mother's decline and death from Parkinson's. He knew, from the moment of his diagnosis, pretty much what lay in store, with the difference that he was diagnosed in his mid-forties and it affected primarily mobility, without the characteristic tremor. Drugs can control the condition in its early stages, and more so today than three decades ago, with glitches when medication needs to be increased or changed.
As the disease progresses, the amount and complexity of medication brings problems of its own in the form of side-effects. There comes a point where the sufferer may find the side-effects as bad, or worse, than the acute tremor, pain or mobility difficulties caused by the disease.
My husband reached that point in the early 2000s, a time that happily coincided with some of the first brain implants – deep brain stimulation, which functions a little like a heart pacemaker to replace electronically the missing dopamine in the brain. The operation tends to be more successful in arresting tremor; the outcome is more mixed for those, such as my husband, whose Parkinson's primarily affects mobility. Pluses and minuses, but it drastically reduced the amount of medication he needed, and so some of the side effects, and I would gauge, gave him an extra seven years of reasonably enjoyable life.
Nikolai was utterly determined to have the DBS operation, fully recognising the then considerable risks. There was no point in trying to dissuade him. His great fear was of becoming helpless – remaining conscious, mentally alert (which he was to the end), but immobile, mute, and unable to do anything for himself. This is also why, practically from the time of his diagnosis, he became a supporter of Dignity For Dying, the charity that has long lobbied for assisted dying, and took every opportunity to insist that, when he judged the time to be right, he wanted to go to Dignitas, if there was still no legal assisted death in the UK.
He was adamant and very clear about what he wanted – and didn't want. Yes, it was partly about control, but it was mainly about gradually losing so much of what made his life worth living. (The loss of dexterity sufficient to operate even an adjusted keyboard was one landmark, as was the decline in his speech.) And I would have taken him to Switzerland – probably by car, as the last of the road trips we used to take in Europe.
I would also have been prepared to defend myself in court, should that need arise, as others in a similar position have done. I am not a natural law-breaker, but I would have had no hesitation in following that course. It should also be stressed that what amounts to a freedom to choose extends only to those with the means and the physical capability to make that journey to Zurich.
I am well aware of the counter-arguments to the current Bill, and to assisted dying in principle and in practice. There is the risk that someone decides on an assisted death, when the diagnosis is wrong. There is the variable (to put it mildly) quality of palliative care, and the largely paid-for social care system in England that could cause sufferers to feel obliged, or be pressurised by potential beneficiaries of their estate to protect the inheritance. (And to anyone who denies that this is a risk, just read all the accounts of disputed wills that regularly appear in the media.)
The most compelling contrary arguments – to me, at least – are those about the sanctity of life, that it is for 'man to propose and God to dispose', which are common to many religions. I also understand, while not quite accepting, the view that assisted dying implies an undervaluing, even dismissal, of people who are disabled or ill.
As it happens, I have a cousin, Revd Michael Wenham, a retired teacher and Church of England vicar, who represents these counter-arguments with admirable conviction and clarity (See My Donkey Body, and many articles). I would never argue that assisted dying should be, or become, anything more than a fully informed and personal choice.
I also have qualms about doctors who argue that their Hippocratic oath says 'do no harm', and assisting someone to die amounts, as I heard one say recently, "to the ultimate harm'. To me, an equal harm is to 'strive officiously to keep someone alive', which is what modern medicine, too often, allows.
In the event, I was spared the agonising trip to Zurich. Seven years ago, my husband suffered a cardiac arrest while we were on holiday in Sicily. A mediaeval historian, he had spent some of the morning happily looking at the Norman tombs in Palermo cathedral, and died in the evening, within minutes of his collapse, for all the heroic efforts of the Italian ambulance crew, to revive him.
In many ways, it was the perfect end, in the perfect setting – and the Italians, from the medics to the police to the undertakers, were exemplary, assisted by my nearly bilingual sister, who flew in the next day from southern Italy where she has lived for more than 40 years.
That many of those who would opt for an assisted death, if it became legal, will depart this life, as my husband did, before the need arises to act on their wishes, does not diminish the fundamental argument. There is an urgent need for assisted dying to become a choice that does not depend on possessing the means to get to Dignitas in Zurich or risk a close friend or relative ending up in court.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

STV News

an hour ago

• STV News

Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone to step down as MSP at election next year

Scottish Parliament Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone has confirmed she will not run to be an MSP again at next year's election. Johnstone, who was elected as a Scottish Green before taking on the non-partisan role in 2021, says she will be leaving politics. Following the last Scottish Parliament election, the Lothians MSP emerged as the only candidate for Presiding Officer and was elected with 97 votes in favour, 28 against, two abstentions and one spoiled ballot. The role of the Presiding Officer is equivalent to the Speaker of the House of Commons and is responsible for overseeing business at Holyrood, chairing meetings in the debating chamber. Speaking to The Times, Ms Johnstone said: 'I was elected in 2011 and it was always my intention that this would be my last term in Holyrood.' She said she did not come from a political background, adding: 'I was not in a political party but campaigned for the creation of a Scottish Parliament and I then worked as an assistant for Robin Harper, the first-ever Green parliamentarian in the UK elected to the first-ever Scottish Parliament.' Recent weeks have seen the Scottish Conservatives accuse Ms Johnstone of bias in her role, an allegation she has always denied. At the end of May, the Presiding Officer took the rare decision to kick former Tory leader Douglas Ross out of the chamber due to his interjections at First Minister's Questions. During her time as Presiding Officer, she steered the parliament through the Covid pandemic restrictions which saw social distancing and remote working practices implemented. She was also heavily involved in the ceremony following the death of Queen Elizabeth II in 2022, when the King visited the Scottish Parliament to hear a special motion of condolence session. Before entering politics, Ms Johnstone was a qualified athletics coach and previously held the east of Scotland titles for the 800m and 1500m. Some of her earlier campaigns as a parliamentarian included Fans First, a push for fan ownership of football clubs. She also proposed a ban on fracking and campaigned against benefits sanctions in devolved employment schemes. The 59-year-old is a former co-leader of the Scottish Greens and one of her most prominent campaigns was against the killing of mountain hares. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country

Times

an hour ago

• Times

Rod Liddle on his radio comeback: Somehow I'm still on air

Everyone thought it was going to be trouble and would end in tears. Right at the start I rang Trevor Phillips and said: Times Radio has given me a show, on a Saturday, between 10am and 1pm, would you like to be my guest? Trevor is about as close to a friend as I have in this desperate trade of perpetual scribbling and jabbering. There was a hoot of laughter down the line. 'They've given you a show? Has anyone told Ofcom? Yes, I'll be your guest. Put me on an early one before it's taken off air.' I had not really imagined going back into radio at this stage of life. I endured a decade at the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, five of them as editor. There was always an agreement that radio would be absolutely brilliant if it wasn't for the presenters and the listeners. Both of these groups carped all the time and were impossible to deal with. Becoming a presenter, then, was a kind of betrayal. But the prospect held such allure. I had grown very tired of the BBC's monocultural output, its perpetual and predictable consensus, even if I still respected a lot of the people who worked there. Here was a chance to make a programme which would be, I thought, 'refreshingly different', which would 'break the mould'. And as I was a convert to Times Radio already, it was very hard to resist. I would be taking over the slot previously occupied by the brilliant Hugo Rifkind, and therefore a tricky act to follow. I was introduced to the producer, Danny Garlick. He appraised me with slightly narrowed eyes. How would you like to change the show, he asked. 'I'd like it to be refreshingly different, and to break the mould,' I replied. How exactly? 'I'd like it to be a little more, um … you know … fascisty.' I was joking, largely. But I did see it as an opportunity to approach the daily round of news stories from different angles, left and right. That old divide has become almost meaningless today. Politics does not know where it is; it has become lost. Reform urging nationalisation and the Labour prime minister conjuring echoes of Enoch Powell? This isn't just a shifting of the Overton window, it's a screen door being flung open. And yet too often the broadcasters follow the same old patterns which simply don't hold any more. The first couple of shows were terrifying, of course. Three hours to get through without losing the script, saying 'holy f***' or having a heart attack. I used to edit the Saturday edition of Today, a two-hour show which was put together by three or four producers the previous day plus an overnight team of three or four producers, not to mention input from a forward planning team. Here I had the services of the aforementioned Danny for one and a half days each week. But God, he's good. The most flawless producer I have encountered and generous of spirit, too. When, two weeks ago, I inadvertently deleted the entire three hours of script from the computer so that it could not be retrieved, 15 minutes before we were due to start the show, he performed a kind of technological miracle and we made it to air. Nor did he, when I told him what I had done, call me an abject little tit, which is what I would have done. And then some. What I really wanted from the programme was thought and depth from the political interviews, rather than the splenetic harrying of politicians you get elsewhere. We were the only broadcasters to secure an interview with the only British politician invited to Donald Trump's inauguration, the Labour peer Lord Glasman. We have had long-form political interviews with Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage and even longer interviews with the BBC chairman, Samir Shah, Richard Dawkins and the Labour recusant Rosie Duffield. But alongside this stuff there's also been a chance to share a joke with the audience and to hear what they are making of it all. One of the highlights, for me, has been the constant stream of WhatAapp messages coming in from listeners, which we read out. It is a privilege to know that people are so engaged. Mind you, it is also an act of kindness on Danny's part that he does not forward to me the messages which say: 'Get this interminable arse off air this minute.' When I ask him how many say that sort of thing, he usually mumbles: 'Oh, you know, only one or two …' The whole thing has rejuvenated my appetite for radio. And I hope, if you tune in, it may rejuvenate yours. It is a mix of highish culture, expert journalism from Times correspondents and humour — much like The Sunday Times itself. What's more, Trevor Phillips has been on the show loads more times. And I always remind him, as the second hand ticks round, that here we are, Trevor, still on air, still going strong. Listen to Times Radio for free on DAB radio, online or via the free Times Radio app. Rod Liddle presents every Saturday from 10am to 1pm

Reuters

an hour ago

• Reuters

Ukraine asks allies to allocate 0.25% of GDP to boost its weapon production

KYIV, June 21 (Reuters) - President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has called on Ukraine's Western partners to allocate 0.25% of their GDP to helping Kyiv ramp-up weapons production and said the country plans to sign agreements this summer to start exporting weapon production technologies. In remarks released for publication by his office on Saturday, Zelenskiy said Ukraine was in talks with Denmark, Norway, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Lithuania to launch joint weapon production.