On Thursday night, the Oxford Union debated the motion “This House Believes the Right to Die is a Human Right”. It was carried by a majority of 41, with 175 votes in favour and 134 votes against.
Lord Pannick, a pre-eminent barrister in public law, and Lord Neuberger, former Supreme Court judge, spoke for the proposition. His Eminence Anba Angelos, the Coptic Orthodox Archbishop of London, and Professor Sleeman, a palliative care doctor and researcher, spoke for the opposition. Jennifer Yang, Secretary of the Union, also spoke for the proposition, while Katie Pannick opened for the opposition.
Before the debate began, Anita Okunde, the President, introduced a piece of President’s business. This was a motion to reinstate a standing rule to fly the rainbow LGBTQ+ flag during Pride month. Okunde stated that the rule had previously been included, but had been “accidentally” removed. Earlier this month, the Standing Committee voted 7-4 against reinstating it.
Arguing for her motion, Okunde emphasised that what she sought was “transparency, not tokenism”, and that she was not seeking to reinstate the rule “because it is radical… but because it is right.” She asserted the importance of openness and democracy, and criticised the unannounced removal of the rule “without a vote, without a record, and without an explanation.” Her speech was followed by loud applause.
One member stood in opposition. Charles Amos took issue with the “political” nature of the flag, and argued that the Union did not fly political flags. He called the business a “wretched motion” and reduced it to “tokenism”. He cut himself off before detailing precisely what the motion was an “attempt by the President” to do. Some groans followed.
The motion was carried, with deafening ayes. The noes appeared to come exclusively from Amos’s direction.
The evening’s debate centred on “the right to die”, and whether it constitutes a human right, particularly due to its clash with the central right to life. Currently, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, is at the report stage in the House of Commons. If it passes and receives royal assent, this bill will legalise assisted dying in England and Wales, subject to certain safeguards.
Secretary Jennifer Yang opened the debate, in her first paper speech. She contrasted the abstract arguments for the sanctity of life with the “grinding reality” that those with degenerative illnesses faced, invoking “patients trapped in a broken body, pain no medicine can touch”. From a linguistic perspective, she argued that “human” has two meanings – firstly as individual and distinct biologically from animals, and secondly as synonymous with compassion and righteousness. From these strands, she argued that autonomy and dignity are the most important human qualities. In cases where there is a “grave incompatibility between mind and body”, she argued assisted dying “reconciles the gap and restores a person’s autonomy.”
While introducing the speakers, Yang said she was “excited to see which side of the House will ‘Pannick’ more tonight”. Katie Pannick, a History student at St John’s, opened for the opposition. She immediately addressed “the elephant in the room” – her father, Lord Pannick, was sitting opposite her. On the topic of ‘nepo babies’ she joked that “if it wasn’t for [her] illustrious career in the Union, [Lord Pannick] might never have been invited to speak” at the debate.
Pannick devoted most of her time to a practical evaluation of the right to die. She set out the content of the Assisted Dying Bill, and considered its safeguards. She suggested that there would have to be absolutely no error within the assisted dying process for it to be viable, and this was simply impossible – doctors make mistakes in far less important areas. Even if there were sufficient resources, she argued that they should go towards addressing palliative care, or the root causes of despair. A right to die would instead lead to a society that “begins to accept death as a solution to their social and economic problems”, and a state that “moves from protecting life to facilitating death”.
Lord Pannick continued for the proposition. He picked up on a point made by his daughter that the Assisted Dying Bill “makes legal what would otherwise be considered murder”, and correctly argued that this is not legally true. He detailed the Suicide Act 1961, which decriminalised assisted suicide, as well as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which allows adults of sound mind to give direction not to be resuscitated. He argued that the Assisted Dying Bill merely filled the gap left by these acts, for those who need assistance to die. In short: “I say to those who are arguing against this proposition – You’re too late! You’re 64 years too late.”
Professor Sleeman was next for the opposition. She emphasised that her opposition was not to the principle of a right to die, but to the practical implications it would incur. The vulnerable populations most at risk, in her view, “are voiceless in this debate. We don’t hear from them. We can’t.” As a palliative care doctor, she discussed her experience in deprived areas, where elderly patients had an average reading age of 8. In light of this, she considered the proposed safeguards. She argued that mental capacity requirements, and assessments of an absence of coercion would not be effective for the most vulnerable. She feared systemic coercion, as well as “people ‘choosing’ an assisted death because they can’t get the care they need.”
Lord Neuberger concluded for the proposition. Like Lord Pannick, he made a more practical argument based on legal reality. He argued that “the current law… actually criminalises compassion” by preventing those who require assistance to die from doing so. He did acknowledge the dangers of abuse, but emphasised that the response to this would be “curbing freedoms appropriately, not removing them.” Ultimately, he argued there should be a balance struck between “the risk of a few cases of abuse… with the assistance you’re giving to many people who are suffering badly”. He also criticised the ‘slippery slope’ argument as the “last refuge of someone who can’t find any objection to legislation”.
Archbishop Angelos closed the debate. He emphasised his religious perspective, but also his experience with dying and despairing people. In their lowest moments, he argued, people want to die, “but they come back from it”. The pain these people felt should be treated with “support and embracing” not a “quick fix”. He considered people feeling like a burden, and argued that the option of assisted dying would only amplify this feeling. He highlighted the need to “fight for every life, even if the holder of that life feels like he or she is not worth being fought for”, and the danger of giving into despair with easy access to assisted dying.
The result was at odds with the general public. YouGov’s most recent survey had 75% of British adults in favour of assisted dying being legal, with 13% against, and 14% not knowing. The Oxford Union was far more divided. With 175 ayes and 134 noes, the split was 57% for and 43% against.
