No, suicide is not just another lifestyle choice

Only in the UK could it happen that the operator of an underground mass transit system would be considered an appropriate moral arbiter, while faiths and beliefs, backed by thousands of years of ethical teaching, are considered disturbing and dangerous.

In the same month that Lord Falconer criticized religious figures for daring to express an opinion on assisted dying, Transport for London gave the green light for the takeover advertising space on the Westminster Tube, making it a sort of suicidal “Winter Wonderland.”

In one ad, sponsored by Dignity in Dying, a young woman in silk pajamas dances happily around her kitchen. This is reminiscent of the Ann Summers ad, not the ad where she was given a massive overdose of barbiturates.

This is not presented as a grim decision; irreversibly changing the relationship between the state and the individual. It’s a bachelorette party, bottomless brunch, Carrie Bradshaw and the girls having fun with cosmo. This might be less annoying if TfL were as demanding elsewhere. Not at all. Earlier this year, the comedian was forced to remove a depiction of a hot dog from his show advertisements to avoid infringement TfL’s healthy eating policy.

Not only is the absurdity of the idea that encouraging someone to eat a hotdog is dangerous when promoting actual suicide is okay, but also the way the idea is justified – tapping into the pervasive power of emotional manipulation in our public life; yours.

I’ve written before about the condescending and infantilizing tone of most modern advertising. But the co-option of twee by the assisted dying lobby has shown that it can also be deeply manipulative and sinister.

In debates, proponents often refer (à la Esther Rantzen) to the view that “We wouldn’t treat animals like that“. As veterinarians privately admit, euthanizing pets does not always work perfectly.

But this argument is revealing in another way. “Think of old Rover, you wouldn’t let him suffer” allows your brain to conveniently trick itself into believing that your grandparents are somehow comparable to the dog you had when you were six. Rationally and ethically it doesn’t make sense, but – and this is where you play your wicked role – emotionally it can tug at your heartstrings.

During lockdown, the twee registry was used to suppress dissent in a kind of forced fun. Government messages oscillated dramatically between sentimentality and apocalyptic fear; With Captain Tom Clapathon until 1984

The Prime Minister still sometimes invokes lockdown as a time of heroic sacrifice, when the only real problem was the hypocrisy of those in power. Such views help to bypass unjust punishments, excessive state actions and general poverty. I see it now in the weaponization of concepts like “compassion” and “dignity” (as if they belonged solely to one side).

As they are often invoked in public debate, #BeKind has feelings behind it and actions that are nothing in front of it. Here he masks, among other things, various, extremely well-financed lobbyist groups promoting the campaign.

Kim Leadbeater, sponsor of the bill, recently called on MPs to “withdraw” from the debateironically, in favor of “people with experience”. This is both a damning misconception of how parliamentary democracy works and a depressingly simplistic bilge. No matter how carefully constructed or philosophical this argument sounds, it can all be erased by pouring the stain of “lived experience” on it.

Jess Phillips recently made an equally astonishing concession. “The NHS is not in a good enough state,” she admitted, “but progress cannot be stopped.” This is modernity, proclaimed in an iconic way, as if Mr. Gradgrind were shouting “facts!”

Former Justice Secretary David Gauke (who, despite all his statements, is still considered by some to be a real, old-fashioned Tory) employed a piece of logic so drippingly Whig that it might as well have been copied/pasted straight from Gibbon.

Gauke placed his current endorsement in the context of the great march of history, as if all changes in the social fabric were one and the same. “I look back on my personal decision regarding gay marriage… with a certain pride in being part of something important, just as I look back with regret on my abstention on assisted dying.”

But gay marriage has been partly overtaken by obvious Tory arguments for expanding the ancient institution. On the other hand, assisted dying can only be portrayed as somewhat “conservative” in the sense that it takes us back to practices of our prehistoric ancestorsthat is, those who threw themselves off a cliff as soon as they turned 45 so that they would not constitute an obstacle to the hunter-gatherer process.

Although opponents of assisted dying come from a wide range of political, ethical and religious circles, most of the arguments for this option seem to come down to this point. Therefore, washing twee is both inexorable and dangerous. Fundamentally, its proponents know that they lack coherent ethical and practical arguments to counter the complex challenges posed by their opponents. But they also know that there is a heated debate going on in Parliament and a group of well-meaning but immature MPs who may lack the time or inclination to delve into the views of lawyers and palliative care experts but are keen to send something a little comforting to the electorate , who wrote to them about a suffering relative.

Twee becomes our circuit because we have to think about things that are complicated, nuanced, or painful. “Don’t worry about the big bad world, this is Paddington.”

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.