Prioritise services over ‘naive’ assisted dying bill, says disability advocate
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill likely be voted on on November 29.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A disability rights campaigner opposed to the assisted dying bill has argued care services should be prioritised over the “naive” proposal.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will be debated and likely voted on on November 29, the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015.
Only terminally ill adults with less than six months to live who have a settled wish to end their lives would be eligible under the new law.
Disability rights advocate George Fielding BEM, a wheelchair user with cerebral palsy based in London, said services for those living with health conditions, such as social care and the NHS, should be prioritised over assistance to die.
My fundamental worry that I don't think you can safeguard against is that if you don't give people the assistance to live and you prioritise assistance to die, that means you're only giving quality of life to those that you choose and to those that are more productive, more visible, can speak for themselves, more vocal
“A lot of this talk is ‘it’s the kind thing to do, to just let people die if they want to die, let people die and give them dignity and death’,” the 29-year-old told the PA news agency.
“I want everybody I love, including myself, to have a dignified peaceful death. We could all agree on that.
“My fundamental worry that I don’t think you can safeguard against is that if you don’t give people the assistance to live and you prioritise assistance to die, that means you’re only giving quality of life to those that you choose and to those that are more productive, more visible, can speak for themselves, more vocal.
“I fundamentally believe that the priority of enabling everybody to live a joyful life that they love is to give them the social and emotional infrastructure in society to live independently and with dignity.
“That means reforming services, it means a better NHS, it means reimagining our social care system and it means giving people access to the support that they need.”
Mr Fielding also argued that many people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness are often given a short time to live but survive beyond this.
“Who says you’ve got six months?” Mr Fielding said.
“They might estimate you’ve got six months, but many people with a terminal diagnosis live for years, so how can anyone say for definite that you’ve only got six months?”
He argued some people with terminal illness can become suicidal but suicide is not widely accepted as a positive option.
“In no other context, would you treat somebody who’s going through anxiety, depression with euthanasia? You’d give them therapies. You’d give them counselling. You’d give them a hug and make them a cup of tea and say, ‘I’m here for you’,” he said.
He said the NHS does not value palliative care as it focuses on curing people.
(The NHS) want to spend their time and their money on the things that they can get rid of, on curing illness, and I'm not saying that's the wrong approach, but we all get to a stage within our lives where we get something we can't cure, and that time is also worth investing in
“They want to spend their time and their money on the things that they can get rid of, on curing illness, and I’m not saying that’s the wrong approach, but we all get to a stage within our lives where we get something we can’t cure, and that time is also worth investing in,” he said.
“It is going to have incredibly dangerous consequences for a lot of people that are already under pressure – judges, doctors, carers, people with disabilities.”
A “national conversation” around death is needed, he argued.
“We’re traumatised because we’ve seen people we love die in ways they shouldn’t, and I’m sorry for that, but euthanasia is not the answer to that,” he said.
“It can be a very beautiful time. It can be a distressing time, yes, but you can say, who do you want to meet? Who do you want to speak to in the time you’ve got left?”