Euthanasia lobby poll indicates that a majority of UK citizens support assisted dying for hard cases.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Paul Brand reported for ITV news on March 11 that a poll conducted by the UK euthanasia lobby group, Dignity in Dying, found that 75% of the repondents in the UK support legalizing assisted dying.

The news article did not publish the poll question, but it is known that when people are asked the question - Should terminally ill people who are suffering be able to ask for assisted dying, that the majority will say yes.

When you poll a group of people with a question that is based on a hard case scenario -- the person is terminally ill and suffering uncontrolled pain -- the respondent will react to that specific question.

If you ask people in a poll about real life scenario's, such as in Canada where we are having euthanasia deaths for poverty, homelessness, disability or an inability to obtain medical treatment (not based on futility but based on medical backlogs) then the response changes.

When you poll a group of people with a question that employs inaccurate language, then you will get stronger support. The media article indicates that the Dying in Dignity poll asks if a person should be legally allowed to seek assisted dying.

It is one question to be legally allowed to seek, it is another question whether a doctor or nurse should be legally allowed to poison their patients to death. Also, the term assisted dying is intentionally imprecise. We all want "assistance in dying". That assistance could be home-care or pain and symptom management (if necessary) but the euthanasia lobby use the term assisted dying to confuse us about the act of doctors and nurses killing their patients with poison.

Finally, it is the real life stories that are important.

When you legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide you may think that you are opening the door to specific scenario's but based on human reality there is always other doors behind the door that you have opened.

The recent court case in Alberta is a prime example of the further doors that are opened when you legalize euthanasia.

The Alberta court case concerns a father who has petitioned the court to prevent the euthanasia death of his 27 year old autistic daughter, who lives at home. The father is stating that his daughter does not have a medical condition that qualifies under the law, whereas the daughter has already been approved for death by lethal poison.

The father says that his daughter, who is autistic, has been influenced to believe that death is the answer to her social and personal difficulties, but she doesn't have an irremediable medical condition, as required by the law. Her father also believes that his daughter is depressed but depression doesn't qualify under the law.

The lawyer for the daughter is arguing that it is understandable that the father doesn't want his daughter to die by euthanasia, but the law doesn't give him legal standing. The lawyer for the daughter is saying that the law only requires approval by two medical professionals, and that has been accomplished.

When debating the legalization of euthanasia, the public is presented with the hard case scenario -- the terminally ill person who is suffering uncontrolled pain -- but the reality is that euthanasia cannot be legalized for specific hard case scenario's. The end result is a case of an otherwise healthy 27 year old autistic woman who lives at home who has been approved for death by lethal poison.

Killing is never the solution to social problems, we need a society that offers care.