MPs who vote for ‘assisted dying’ will have blood on their hands

It’s such a clever little euphemism: “assisted dying“. This all sounds so nice and helpful, right? Much nicer and less grim than “assisted suicide.” Or, for that matter, “an exciting and completely legal opportunity to get the silly old bat off the hook, save on her expensive nursing home fees, and collect her inheritance early.”

Yes, “assisted dying” is certainly a much more palatable term than any of these alternatives. Unfortunately, it is also much less honest. Which is a serious problem. Because as a result of the constant use of this soft, delicate euphemism by activists, commentators and parliamentarians, a disturbingly large number of people do not know what it really means. Many assume that this is, for example, palliative care or the right to refuse life-prolonging treatment (a right that patients already have).

The survey shows this problem all too clearly. On Sunday, a national newspaper devoted its front page to a poll that purported to show that almost two-thirds of the British public want MPs to legalize “assisted dying” when the issue goes to a vote in the House of Commons on Friday.

However, another poll, published on Tuesday, showed a completely different picture. When respondents were explained what “assisted dying” was, support for it dropped dramatically – to just 11%. But if so many people don’t actually know what “assisted dying” means, how can you say that society wants it legalized?

However, proponents of “assisted dying” still maintain this dubious claim. Still, we shouldn’t be surprised. Because much of their campaign was naive at best and grossly misleading at worst.

To take disgusting advertising which was plastered on the London Underground by Dignity in Dying, a lobby group demanding legalization. It shows a healthy-looking blonde dancing happily around her kitchen – as if assisted suicide were a delicious delicacy she can’t wait to try.

Added to this is campaigners’ blithe insistence that the proposed new law is not a slippery slope because “assisted dying” would only be for terminally ill patients and two doctors have told them they are entitled to less than six months to live. This claim ignores two important points.

First, research has shown that doctors’ predictions about remaining life expectancy are not infallible. Second, the legalization of “assisted dying” has indeed proven to be a slippery slope in other countries. Let’s take the Netherlands, where physically A healthy 29-year-old woman was granted assisted suicide simply because she suffered from depression. In the US state of Oregon, assisted suicide is provided to people suffering from anorexia, arthritis and even a hernia.

All this shows why MPs should not deceive themselves into thinking that by voting for ‘assisted dying’ they are simply giving the public what it wants, or simply showing ‘compassion’. Because if, after this bill comes into force, there are stories of vulnerable elderly or disabled people being effectively forced to commit suicide, these MPs will be the ones to blame. Amid public fear and fury, they will be told they have blood on their hands. Are parliamentarians really willing to take such a risk?

Then again, maybe this whole sordid debate is academic. After all, “assisted dying” would be the responsibility of the NHS. We all know what the NHS is like. The waiting list will be so long that you’ll be dead by then anyway.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.