At the precipice

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

Last week, Scotland came closer than many expected to legalizing assisted suicide—but then pulled back. MSPs, that is, members of the Scottish Parliament rejected it after just a few months earlier having expressed support. So what changed? Here is WORLD Opinions commentator Bethel McGrew.

BETHEL MCGREW: Dr. Gordon Macdonald of the group Care Not Killing says lawmakers grew uneasy—not about the idea in theory, but about the reality in practice. He reflects on the vote here with interviewer Julia Hartley-Brewer:

MACDONALD: Just when people got to the end of the precipice, you know, they just sort of backed off because although lots of people agree in principle, when they think about it, in more detail, they change their minds. And I think we saw that with the MSPs as well.

As always, the phrase “assisted dying” has a certain seductive appeal to people. On the surface it sounds compassionate, controlled, even dignified. But lawmakers who initially supported the bill started to have second thoughts.

MACDONALD: Lots of the MSPs were worried about coercion, and they didn't feel that it was possible to protect against coercion, and as said by a number of them, even one case of coercion is one too many.

It was high stakes and high drama on the debate floor, as both sides wielded the power of personal narrative to make their case.

One lawmaker favoring the bill tearfully recalled her father’s decision to take his own life in Canada—describing a peaceful deathbed, surrounded by family, where he was able to say goodbye while still in his right mind.

SLATER: I don’t mind if you would never want this choice for yourself. But please, please, don’t prevent other people from choosing it for themselves.

The bill’s sponsor, Liam McArthur, urged wavering members to have what he called “the courage of your convictions.”

But he faced opposition from those showing a different kind of courage. Scottish lawmaker Jeremy Balfour—born missing all of one arm and most of the other—warned of the “Pandora’s box” such a law could open… creating the conditions for coercion:

BALFOUR: We would be opening a Pandora’s box, and the effects on the vulnerable in our society will be devastating.

Disability rights activist Pam Duncan-Glancy offered a stark warning from her wheelchair:

DUNCAN-GLANCY: In a world where so many have little or no choices, we cannot risk making death the only choice they ever have.

Many within the disability rights movement are not explicitly arguing from Christian premises. But Member of Parliament John Mason contextualized his vote within a Christian understanding of the human person:

MASON: At its core we believe that God gives life, and God decides when life should end. Clearly, there are also human reasons for both birth and death, but we believe that behind all of that, God is guiding and directing.

Mason went on to say that despite the undeniable suffering we might face at the end of life, as Christians we also have the hope of the resurrection, a timely reminder as Easter approaches.

For now, that view has carried the day. But the debate is far from over. Life won the battle in Scotland last week. Time will tell whether it will win the war.

For WORLD, I’m Bethel McGrew.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.