Parallels between the end of life bill and the lockdowns

Granny - should we save or should she go?

The lockdowns and the assisted dying bill caused profound societal changes. Both centre on fear of death and both leverage emotional appeals to justify extreme measures. One is ostensibly aimed at saving lives (although achieved the opposite), the other at ending them. Despite their differences, they share rushed legislative processes, inadequate ethical oversight, and disproportionate harm to the vulnerable.

Ethics and Societal Contract

The implementation of both lockdowns and the assisted dying bill represents a fundamental reworking of the societal contract. Lockdowns crossed Rubicon in eroding civil liberties; the assisted dying bill risks crossing an even deeper line by overturning basic moral codes. Both demand careful ethical scrutiny—yet neither has received it.

The government has ethics advisors, such as the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) and the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG), the Ministry of Defence AI Ethics Advisory Panel and the Moral and Ethical Advisory Group (MEAG) for covid issues which was shut down in October 2022. However, none address overarching issues in health and social care nor is there an overarching body.

Suicide has been decriminalized in the UK since 1961, allowing individuals to end their own lives without legal repercussions. The assisted dying bill, however, seeks to involve the state directly in facilitating death, implicating doctors in the process. This raises significant ethical concerns, particularly for medical professionals with conscientious objections, who would still be required to refer patients for assisted death.

Legislative Processes and Media Influence

Lockdowns were imposed rapidly, with minimal public debate and heavy reliance on international precedents. Similarly, the assisted dying bill has progressed with limited scrutiny, modeled on laws in other countries without sufficient examination of their consequences.

A well-funded media campaign supported both initiatives, drowning out critical voices. During lockdowns, dissenters were dismissed as fringe or irresponsible, their concerns silenced in the name of "saving lives." While opposition to the assisted dying bill has been given slightly more space in public discourse, the overall media narrative remains heavily skewed in favour of the legislation.

Emotional Appeals and the Illusion of Control

Both lockdowns and the assisted dying bill are rooted in emotional arguments tied to a fear of dying. In the case of lockdowns, the narrative centered on protecting the elderly and vulnerable from an airborne virus—a threat that could not realistically be controlled. The assisted dying bill similarly plays on the fear of suffering, presenting a vision of death as a dignified escape.

The reality of assisted suicide, even a medicalised one is not as clean as people would like to believe with people regaining consciousness and many dying over many hours with the upper end being 137 hours - more than 5 days (see range below from Oregon data). The image of drowning in fecal vomit was made prominently. Not only does this never happen when palliative care is on offer, but even if someone was suffering in that way, the problem would be treated long before any death intervention could happen.

At their core, both policies reflect a fantasy of control: control over a virus that spreads invisibly and uncontrollably, and control over the inevitability of death. The emotional resonance of these arguments makes it difficult to engage in rational, fact-based debate, allowing flawed assumptions to go unchallenged.

Faith in Authority and Predictive Models

The belief in the omniscience of doctors and the sanctified status of the NHS underpins both policies. During lockdowns, doctors were hero-worshipped, with certain high-profile figures elevated to a "High Priest" status, rendering them almost immune to criticism. The mantra "Protect the NHS" was used to justify sweeping restrictions on personal freedoms. Similarly, in the assisted dying debate, there is an implicit trust in doctors’ ability to predict the future and deliver a clean death. While often avoided in public discussion, proponents of assisted dying have occasionally referenced the NHS’s strained resources as a justification for earlier deaths. This reasoning dangerously implies that some lives are expendable to preserve the system.

Both policies also rely heavily on predictive models. Lockdowns were justified by worst-case scenarios that later proved wildly inaccurate. The assisted dying bill similarly assumes the infallibility of terminal diagnoses and life expectancy predictions. In both cases, the philosophy of "what if?" dominates decision-making, often ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Disproportionate Impact on the Vulnerable

Lockdowns and the policies that came with it led to isolation, neglect and deaths of the most vulnerable. Judging by every precedent the assisted dying bill will also lead to deaths of the most vulnerable. For example, in the Netherlands only 60% of assisted dying cases had voluntary consent and where there appears to be consent this may well be coerced by the individual not wanting to feel a burden.

Lockdown had a massive impact on the lives of children. The current proposed legislation does not include children but it has been pointed out that the arguments put forward would all apply equally to children. On the day of the debate a bill for funding for children's hospice care was not heard because of the dying bill.

Both policies reflect the demands of the "laptop class," who are largely immune from the detrimental effects, while the most vulnerable pay the price.

Facts vs. Emotional Narratives

In both cases, factual objections are dismissed in favour of emotional appeals. Lockdowns presented saving lives as the ultimate goal, ignoring evidence on their lack of efficacy or harmful consequences. The assisted dying bill similarly leverages personal stories of suffering to obscure uncomfortable truths, such as the difficulty of safely implementing such laws and the slippery slope seen in other countries.

Public opinion on assisted dying shifted dramatically when factual arguments were presented, dropping from 80% support to just 11%. Yet MPs continue to ignore the facts, advancing legislation that favours emotion over evidence.

Political and Moral Divides

Support and opposition to both policies has come from across traditional party lines. Progressives and conservatives alike can be found on both sides of the debate.

More broadly, both policies expose deeper moral and philosophical divides. Lockdowns reframed the relationship between individuals and the state, justifying severe restrictions on personal freedom. The assisted dying bill goes further, challenging the very sanctity of life by normalizing state-sanctioned killing.

Conclusion

Lockdowns and the assisted dying bill represent two sides of the same coin: policies that claim to prioritize a "greater good" while sidelining ethical considerations and disproportionately harming the vulnerable. Both reflect a troubling willingness to sacrifice fundamental principles in the face of fear of death.

Lockdowns justified lethal policies as necessary to "save granny." The assisted dying bill now promotes killing granny as dignified. Together, they mark a profound and unsettling shift in societal values, one that demands urgent and careful reflection.