A question of killing

Last week, Reform MP Rupert Lowe raised eyebrows by calling for the return of capital punishment in the wake of the Southport killer’s sentencing. This year is the 60th anniversary of the abolition of the death penalty, a decision that successive parliaments and governments have consistently reaffirmed. 

This week, a poll by More in Common revealed that 55 per cent of British people support reintroducing the death penalty for certain crimes, with opposition falling to just 32 per cent. One in 20 members of the public even backed using capital punishment for shoplifting!

MPs are therefore seemingly at odds with the public on this issue. Moreover, as the assisted suicide Bill winds its way through Parliament, many could be accused of holding contradictory stances. On the one hand, MPs have steadfastly opposed the death penalty since its abolition in 1965. On the other hand, a small majority are now entertaining the notion of another form of death at the hands of the state, assisted suicide. Perhaps they are trying to have their cake and eat it — or more aptly, have their hemlock and drink it.

The irony is clear. While many MPs would oppose the state condemning a guilty killer like Axel Rudakubana to an early death, they are happy to rush into law legislation that would lead to the early deaths of many of the most vulnerable people in our society. Many who oppose the death penalty do so on the grounds that it cannot be reversed if it is later discovered the condemned person was innocent. “One innocent person is too many,” they cry with moral righteousness. Yet, the same voices seem remarkably sanguine about the potential for assisted suicide laws to risk the premature deaths of those who might receive incorrect prognoses, later have second thoughts or be coerced into ending their lives.

“What margin of error would we, as a society, find acceptable?” asks Dr Katherine Sleeman, an expert in palliative and end-of-life care at King’s College London. “Would we accept the death of one person who didn’t want to die in order to allow the assisted death of one who did? Or maybe that ratio is one to ten, or maybe it’s one to a hundred.” If some object to the death of those guilty of the most heinous crimes because of the risk of an innocent person dying, on what grounds would they not apply the same principle all the more with assisted suicide laws?

Some may object that there is a difference in the kind of death, so effective has been the narrative of campaigners that so-called “assisted dying” is simply a matter of putting someone to sleep to enable them to drift blissfully into a peaceful death. And yet, the drugs used for executions by lethal injection are often the same as those used for euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

Dr Joel Zivot analysed autopsies from over 200 executed prisoners, which he maintains revealed that lethal injection often causes severe pulmonary oedema, where fluid fills the lungs, leading to a sensation akin to drowning or suffocating. This discovery shattered the myth that death by lethal injection was a “humane and peaceful process”. There have been no widespread studies of the bodies of people who die this way.

One wonders if supporters would be quite so enthusiastic if the method involved pressing a button to fire a gun at one’s head or activate a hangman’s noose. Such methods would shatter the comforting illusion that “assisted dying” is somehow distinct from suicide.

Perhaps most baffling of all are the libertarians who support assisted suicide on grounds of autonomy while remaining deeply sceptical about state intervention in other areas, such as the death penalty. One can only imagine the efficiency with which our beloved NHS might handle this new definition of end-of-life care — “I’m sorry, sir, but your appointment to die has been rescheduled. How does next Tuesday at 3 pm sound?”

While Rupert Lowe’s recent call to reinstate the death penalty may seem extreme to some, it at least demonstrates a consistent stance on state-sanctioned death — even if one might wish to suggest to Mr Lowe that the mantle of authentic conservatism that Reform UK seeks to champion begins with conserving the life of the most vulnerable: it is notable that Article 2 of the ECHR (Convention not Court), which upholds the “right to life”, specifically allows the death penalty but makes no explicit exception for any form of euthanasia. The same consistency cannot be attributed to those who oppose judicial executions after due process but support assisted suicide, for which processes and appeals mechanisms are often far more murky.

This debate reveals a fundamental hypocrisy among our political class. Those who pat themselves on the back for their enlightened stance on capital punishment, simultaneously flirt with state-sanctioned suicide. It’s as if they’ve decided that killing is wrong, unless you really, really want it.

In matters of life and death, consistency should not be too much to ask for — even from politicians.