Whether explicitly or implicitly, every MP believes that out of the roughly 70mn inhabitants of these islands, they are one of the 650 people most suited to ruling it. In this, most, if not all, are wrong.
Before you ascribe this to cynicism or a certain disillusionment with the political process (neither entirely unfair), consider the recent debate on Assisted Dying. The Commons devoted an entire six hours to the discussion, less than one percent of the time it dedicated to the rather less serious matter of fox-hunting (our vulpine friends might, of course, disagree). The journalist Dan Hitchens (one of the heroes of the sad, sorry saga, along with Madeleine Grant and Yuan Yi Zhu) counted ten errors of fact in the speech of Kim Leadbeater, the bill’s sponsor who was forced to correct herself during the debate. Cat Eccles objected to Danny Kruger’s (another hero) use of the term “suicide”, revealing her ignorance not just of the plain meaning of the term, but also of the fact that she was engaged in a debate about overriding parts of the Suicide Act 1961. Other MPs appeared not to have read the bill, while some displayed a certain ignorance of what Parliament actually exists to do. Over the weekend, once the debate had finished, it emerged that we still do not know who will fund the procedure when it is legalised, as it inevitably will be.
As someone once said, we are not sending our best.
Still, to Ms Leadbeater and some journalists, the whole affair had shown Parliament in its “best light”.
There was certainly plenty of emotion on display (on both sides), heart-rending stories both pro and con listened to in respectful silence, but as we have seen, often a lack of cold, hard thinking. Those who saw Parliament at its best, were those who prioritise feeling over thinking; the sincere emotion of the Romantics over the rationalism of the Enlightenment.
For the whole debate was conducted in purely emotional terms. Think about how those with terminal illnesses must feel was the alpha and omega of the pro-side’s argument, facts as nothing compared to vibes. Ms Leadbetter found the use of the term “suicide” offensive too, happy to lead the nation into the abyss, less happy about being made to feel bad about it. ITV chose to show footage of the joyful moment the news was relayed to Dame Esther Rantzen, the eminence noire of this latest stage in the country’s slide into the infernal regions, elevating the emotional state of a superannuated television presenter, properly of concern only to her and (perhaps) her immediate family, to national news. Call me a bad person if you will, but if the choice is between granny being put down and Dame Esther having the sads, there is only one option.
But it could hardly be otherwise.
For, as I have written elsewhere, as we have stopped being Christian we have unwittingly become Epicurean; followers of a belief system, whose understanding of the universe science has come to share, which elevated the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain to the highest good. The Epicureans had no concept of human dignity or inherent worth, we were nothing more (and nothing less) than a collection of atoms, temporarily cohering. Life was merely a progression of mental states, some of which were to be pursued and others to be avoided. There could be, to them, no nobility in suffering, nor purpose to existence beyond an individual’s personal experiences.
So, it appears, think many of our MPs. All that was important was helping others avoid suffering (and, cynically, the pleasurable moral glow engendered by knowing one is a good person who CARES). The details might be sketchy, no-one appears entirely to understand them, and there is plentiful evidence from other jurisdictions that the slippery slope is real and rather slippery. But all this was as nothing compared to the promise of helping some avoid pain. Just don’t call it assisted suicide, because that might make us sad. And that’s just wrong because emotions are the most important thing; they’re the only thing.
In fact, the true villains of the piece were not those trying to stop the vulnerable being killed, but those who would seek to dissuade them. Coercion to some of the proponents was not as one might assume, greedy relatives eager to hasten their access to the inheritance, but those who would prefer to bide their time, valuing the company of their elderly over their assets. They were interfering with the afflicteds’ right and, at some stage no doubt, duty to minimise their suffering.
But if we are to be Epicurean, let us be Epicurean. For the ancients realised that one guaranteed source of pain was participation in public life. So, they withdrew from society. The bill will pass, but once it has done so, its proponents should retire from Parliament. That is the consistent thing to do. All Westminster offers is suffering and any reasonable individual would wish to minimise that. If they don’t, we should force them. It will, like their law, be for their own good.
Stewart Slater works in Finance. He invites you to join him at his website.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
I recall my then twelve year old daughter demanding the right to ‘stay out at an all night party’ with a bunch of eighteen year olds. When firmly told ‘no’ she threatened to phone Esther Rantzen and accuse us of ‘child abuse’. I suspect the Bill in question may not be the first unwitting harm this possibly well-meaning woman has perpetrated.
“well-meaning”? Unlikely; she was employed by the BBC
Also allegedly was aware of ‘oddness’ of someone that her Childline ought to have taken an interest in, plus said unvaxxed ought to be denied NHS and left to die at home. Not quite the national treasure that the MSM consumers believe.
Pingback: The Equality of Opportunity to Die | UK Reloaded
But isn’t Utilitarian much like Epicurean? And wasn’t Utilitarianism part of the ‘Enlightenment’? Was the Enlightened Bentham a better thinker than the Romantic Coleridge? Or Blake? Or, come to that, Keats or Shelley or Wordsworth? I don’t think Mr Slater’s Enlightenment Thinkers v. Romantic Emoters is a contrast that will survive actually reading much of the parties concerned.
Setting aside the topic (assisted suicide or euthanasia, let’s not mince words here, I’m in favour but why pretend it’s hugely different to the humane ‘putting down’ of much loved animals?) the key point for me was the incredibly low calibre of all MPs and their inability to focus on facts and not emotions. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised after the revealing Brexit, Covid and Ukraine farces and the overriding mantra of our times ‘to be seen to be nice’. Bring nice, or more accurately pretending to, will be our undoing.
“the slippery slope is real and rather slippery”… I am reminded of Bill Clinton and the debate on Abortion back in 1992- I paraphrase, but his sentiment was that there would always be safeguards and that the act would be “Safe, Legal and Rare.” Whilst figures are disputed, it is not denied that there have been at least 1 million of such “rare” acts every year in the USA- God only knows what the global figures are. In Canada and elsewhere today the “euthanisation” of the vulnerable, already born, continues apace. In sum, I have little faith that our political leaders, judiciary, or “Healthcare” professionals will protect the weakest among us from being coerced into many more “convenient deaths”.
Pingback: News Round-Up – The Daily Sceptic