By Gavin St Pier
SOMETIMES politics can surprise. Last week, the States Assembly did just that. They voted in favour of the Council of Ministers’ proposals to introduce assisted dying in Jersey.
The vote was welcome by those of us who have campaigned for this reform for some time, but it was not a great surprise.
The scale of the vote – 31 votes in favour and 15 against – was where the surprise lay. Perhaps it shouldn’t have been, given that the States Assembly had already voted 36 to 10 in November 2021 to support the idea in principle. But that’s the point, it was only in principle, so there was every reason to expect that support on the detailed proposals might be a little tighter. That vote was also by a different Assembly, before Jersey’s 2022 general election, so there was no certainty that the new cohort would feel the same way.
By chance, the vote pretty much reflected Jersey’s public opinion. This had been expressed not only through the citizen’s jury that had informed the proposals, but also the last public opinion poll undertaken before the vote, which had 61% of the public in favour of the proposals.
The propositions approved a model, which has been carefully drafted, having drawn heavily on a now well-trodden path elsewhere, particularly New Zealand and the Australian states. As assisted death will become one of the end-of-life options, alongside palliative care, for a mentally competent, Jersey resident, terminally ill adult with six months to live (or 12 in the case of neurodegenerative conditions).
Controversially for some campaign groups, the Assembly rejected an additional alternative that would also have allowed access for an individual with an incurable physical condition that caused “unbearable” suffering.
Like many campaigns for change, there can be nuanced but deeply held differences of opinion. To the outside world, these differences may seem like a Monty Python-esque attempt to distinguish between the People’s Front of Judea or the Judean People’s Front, but that does not diminish the fact the views are strongly held.
For some, only permitting the terminally ill choice, seems like a cruel and arbitrary inequity for those with a multitude of other incurable conditions which individuals may understandably find unbearable.
For a small group of the most extreme purist libertarians, a right to die ought to be just that, a right to die. Period. The challenge for politicians is to construct a legal regime that is the right one for and reflects the will of their own communities. This is what makes the “slippery slope” argument specious from those opposed, that if governments give a legislative inch, soon someone will take a mile.
The less restrictive regimes that exist in Belgium or The Netherlands are cited as examples where the rules allowing access have been eased over time. That really is a matter for the Belgians and the Dutch and their relationship with their governments and is no argument for other communities not to adopt a model that works for them.
Sometimes it seems that those who oppose assisted dying are more committed in their opposition than those among the general public who approve of the idea. They will oppose up to and beyond Royal Assent of the legislation. The argument that it’s about choice, that someone’s right not to choose an assisted death should not block someone else who wants one, simply cuts no ice. Neither does the case that a model focused exclusively on the terminally ill is not about shortening life, but shortening death for those whose death is imminent.
Organised opposition groups are often faith based with faith funding, despite the fact that opinion polling this year found support from a majority within all major faiths, other than among Muslims.
For those who believe that it’s through suffering that an individual can find greater understanding of their God or spiritual truths, they are free to suffer. To require others to do so, feels like a form of proselytising which, frankly, many might not wish for on their death bed.
Some disability representatives also contend that assisted dying diminishes the disabled, although it’s not at all obvious why. Someone who is terminally ill may or may not be disabled. Most who are disabled are not terminally ill. Someone who is terminally ill and disabled may or may not choose an assisted death. It seems those with disabilities agree, with 74% in polling wanting to have the choice if they are terminally ill, and only 8% wanting disability groups to oppose the adoption of assisted dying.
The proposals better safeguard the terminally ill than leaving them, as they presently are, to the unenviable choice of travelling alone to Switzerland – if they can afford it – or if they cannot, taking (or attempting to take) their own lives, with all the attendant distress for them and their loved ones. Failing that, their experience in their final days and hours will be determined by the judgment of individual health practitioners and all the variety that might bring.
I say this quietly from Guernsey, but I am envious of Jersey’s approach to this topic. It’s been a masterclass in effective policy-making that not merely reflects the public’s mood, but has produced an excellent, robust set of proposals. It was recognised as a serious social issue that needed to be handled seriously. It was properly resourced, not only with the citizen’s jury, but also an ethical review.
With public support in Guernsey at 80% in the most recent polling, the upside for Guernsey is Jersey has done all the heavy lifting in designing a model that fits our environment. If Guernsey’s States approves a version of these same proposals before the end its term in June 2025, then there would be an ideal opportunity for the two islands to share the resource in drafting the detailed legislation.
Now that would be a surprise.
-
Gavin St Pier is a Guernsey politician. He previously served as the President of the island’s Policy and Resources Committee.
NB: All the polling data referred to has been drawn from the most recent Dignity in Dying commissioned poll, all accessible online: dignityindying.org.uk.
