Georgia L Gilholy is a journalist.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB), a major health research charity, will soon push for a citizens’ jury on assisted dying. Such a move would undoubtedly undermine parliamentary democracy with yet more unaccountable processes, and risk further eroding Britain’s decaying respect for the dignity of life.
Citizens’ juries, while cunningly framed as a means to gather public opinion, have been strategically employed by various global lobbies to advance specific political agendas.
These so-called juries are a macabre parody of their real equivalent. Far from being a thorough but fair probe by one’s peers, they are unaccountable bodies of alleged experts fundamentally at odds with British constitutional conventions.
While they lack official status and legally binding authority, the outcomes can be exploited by politicians to justify legal changes. In the case of assisted dying, this could lead to a potential alteration of our laws based on (perceived) popular support, rather than the thorough scrutiny and debate that such a thorny issue demands.
The NCB’s spearheading of this initiative raises questions about impartiality. Danielle Hamm, its director, was formerly associated with Compassion in Dying, the sister organisation of pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying. Can we expect her to magically shed her bias in this role?
The parent Nuffield Foundation’s Membership Committee, which is used to consider and make recommendations to its influential Council for future membership, is chaired by Sarah Guerra, who has worked in a series of Diversity, Inclusion and Equality roles, including for Bank of England, King’s College London, Ministry of Defence and more. She was also a member of the Editorial Board for the Guardian for a year in 2015.
These connections naturally raise concerns about potential bias in the organisation’s approach, especially if they’re curating the advice and information jurors receive.
It is important to remember that so-called citizens’ assemblies on assisted dying elsewhere have often resulted in outcomes aligned with the pro-assisted dying agenda.
On February 20 2023, the Citizens’ Assembly on assisted dying in France voted overwhelmingly in favour of legalising assisted dying; 121 citizens (72 per cent) out of 167 voted in favour, 32 against, and 10 abstentions. In September 2021, the Citizens’ Jury on assisted dying in Jersey voted overwhelmingly in favour (78 per cent) of permitting assisted dying under certain circumstances.
In 2018, 15 people in South Dunedin took part in a citizens’ jury at the University of Otago on euthanasia and assisted dying. The jury was split, with ten in favour of a law change and five opposed.
The potential consequences of such a citizens’ jury cannot be underestimated. It may provide a platform for proponents of assisted dying to bolster their arguments and push for legal changes based on the assembly’s recommendations.
Furthermore, the NCB’s acceptance of government funding, as evidenced by the £1.3 million received in grants in 2022, raises questions about the influence of public funds on the direction of this initiative. While the its citizens’ jury would not have official authority, it has the potential to shape the discourse and serve as a catalyst for policy changes.
It is imperative that we critically assess the motivations and affiliations of those involved in organising such initiatives and ensure that the integrity of our democratic system remains intact.
While much of the assisted dying lobby seems genuinely motivated by the noble cause of reducing harm, the places where the procedure has been legalised, show that this is rarely the overall result.
Canada’s Bill C-7, passed in 2021, further opened up its euthanasia legislation to people of any age with disabilities or mental health conditions. Belgian law allows euthanasia if the patient is in a state of constant physical or psychological pain.
In the Netherlands, doctors can secretly sedate patients who have dementia before euthanising them, and euthanasia for anyone over the age of 16 is legal – and the country is now thinking about extending the regime to the over-12s.
When they do manage to fill their vacancy, there is little doubt that NF will use this project to bypass Parliament in their mission to get traction for legal change on assisted dying. Politicians and voters should not fall for – or fund – their ruse.