Assisted Dying

The question of assisted dying is one of the most ethically complex and emotionally charged issues facing the UK today. Parliament is poised to vote on the matter, but it raises an important question: who should ultimately decide on this sensitive topic? Is it right for MPs - who are not elected specifically on their stance on assisted dying - to cast the deciding vote? Or should the matter be put to a public referendum?

 

One argument in favour of a referendum is that assisted dying touches on deeply personal beliefs, spanning morality, ethics, and religion. Since MPs are not elected based on their views on such niche issues, some argue it is inappropriate for them to make a decision of this magnitude. A referendum would allow the people to directly voice their opinion on a matter that could affect anyone in a profoundly personal way.

If a referendum were called, MPs could instead vote on whether such a referendum should take place. This would maintain their role as decision-makers while recognising the limits of their mandate on specialised moral issues.

However, the case against a referendum is equally compelling. Matters like assisted dying require careful, nuanced consideration of legal, ethical, and medical implications. Public opinion, while valuable, can be shaped by emotion and media narratives, which might lead to oversimplification of the issue - as we have seen from the Brexit referendum.

For instance, a referendum on capital punishment - a similarly emotive issue - would likely result in its reinstatement, despite strong arguments against it. Such a decision might be driven more by visceral reaction than by a thorough examination of the evidence or consideration of human rights implications. Could a referendum on assisted dying suffer a similar fate, with the public swayed by personal fears or high-profile cases, rather than the complex realities of end-of-life care?

There is no easy answer to how the UK should decide on assisted dying. One potential compromise could involve a citizens’ assembly - a representative group of people tasked with studying the issue in depth, hearing from experts, and then making recommendations. This model combines the breadth of public opinion with the depth of informed deliberation.

Alternatively, MPs could be tasked with facilitating more robust public consultations and debates before casting their votes. While not as direct as a referendum, this approach would ensure that public sentiment informs parliamentary decisions without risking the oversimplification of the issue.

Whether the decision is made by MPs or the public, it must be approached with humility, compassion, and respect for differing views. Assisted dying is a matter of life and death - literally - and deserves a process that honours its gravity. A referendum may offer direct democracy, but it also risks reducing a profound ethical debate to a simple yes or no. Conversely, a parliamentary vote maintains the tradition of representative democracy but raises questions about MPs’ mandates on such deeply personal matters.

How we decide to decide may be as important as the decision itself.