Rachel Moore says assisted dying should be opposed

An MP’s shoes aren’t places many of us would want to be in today as they face the toughest voting decision for decades – for or against the assisted dying bill to give some terminally ill people in England and Wales the right to die when they choose.

It’s a dilemma with so much grey area that, like me, you’ve probably been flip-flopping between the ayes and noes, with views changing like this week’s weather.

While personally I believe I would want the responsibility to end my own life if I knew I had a limited life of unbearable pain ahead, feelings about their own death can’t guide an MP’s decision.

The red flags, as always, are other people. Human nature, which isn’t always motivated by the best interests of others.

One minute I’m nodding along to support Dame Esther Rantzen, who has cancer and has lobbied hard for this bill, as she passionately and so very logically puts her case. Who wants to face an unpleasant death when you could plan it with dignity, with your loved ones transparently and as you would like?

Of course, Esther is right. Her argument is so compelling.

Then I listen to others, like Jess Asato, Lowestoft MP, who held a public meeting in the town to hear constituents’ views and has written to them laying out her reasons for filing through with the noes.

Compassionate and understanding the eye-voters about reducing the suffering of those at the end of their lives, but eloquent about the real concerns about coercion, abuse and manipulation into making decisions, and people choosing to take their own lives because they felt like a “burden,” which can come from subliminal coercion.

As she states, “just one wrong death is too many."

The elephant in the room is the age-old issue of money at the centre. And it must be the key concern because money motivates so many people. You only need to look at the rows over inheritance and the lengths people go to for “their share.”

Unscrupulous individuals with their eyes on any financial benefits through inheritance that might come from an assisted death is the biggest red flag.

People are very manipulative, clever and slippery, especially where money is concerned and there is no love lost in a family.

With already sky high and rocketing care bills, gravely ill people already feel like burdens on the family who would inherit the money being spent on care when they have no way out.

There is too much of a fine line here in people’s minds.

However much we are reassured there are ‘extremely strong’ safeguards and provisions in the bill, the doubt remains overwhelming.  

Having trust and faith that safeguards are watertight is like having faith in a flying pig.

The description terminally ill and in the last six months of life is also a concern. There are so many cases of people being given months to live and go on with fulfilled lives for years. It’s too open to interpretation and distortion.

In raising this bill, Kim Leadbeater is addressing a vital society debate, and her motivation and dedication is admirable and with the best intentions.

The people working hard for this to become law are admirable and motivated by the right reasons.

The arguments are strong. Although, using the pet analogy must stop. There is no comparison between pet and human euthanasia, and it shouldn’t be used as one.

But an overwhelming fear remains that the process would be used for the wrong reasons and the unscrupulous would manipulate it to their own advantage.

Better end of life care is desperately needed, and more open discussions about death are important, but now isn’t the time to bring in this law.

This debate might not lead to a new law but it has achieved a long overdue focus on a crucial universal issue and gone some away to addressing the taboo and discomfort about death, how we deal with it and how we can approach it.

But society simply isn’t ready or reliable enough yet though. I would follow the noes.

Monster vehicles should pay more

It’s what people who drive normal size cars think, especially when they’re trying to squeeze into a space between two small-bus sized 4x4s sprawling line to line in a car park.

Hurrah for Cardiff. Its council is holding a public consultation – actually asking its people what they think rather than imposing its will - about traffic management and is asking if people wo want a parking permit should pay more to park a humungous car than a little Mini like mine.

There is only one right answer. Of course.

The same should apply to car parks too, with parking spaces big enough to accommodate these tanks with premium fares.

And while they’re at it, every city should ask its residents to feed back on whether these ‘cars’ – at least the US calls them what they are SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) – have any place in a city at all to address a scourge of urban living once and for all.