FridayOL

The recent vote in the Scottish Parliament to legalise assisted dying sent ripples across the globe, and my reaction, as a healthy 59-year-old living alone without children, wasn't immediate shock or surprise. However, a distinct chill of apprehension settled in. It’s a complex issue, and while I understand the arguments for individual autonomy and compassionate end-of-life choices, I believe this decision warrants serious consideration, especially from a Singaporean perspective.

For years, the debate around assisted suicide has centered on alleviating suffering for those facing terminal illnesses. The intention is undoubtedly noble – to grant individuals control over their final moments and to prevent prolonged agony. Yet, the legalisation of assisted dying raises profound questions about the value of life, the potential for coercion, and the impact on vulnerable populations. Here in Singapore, where societal values often prioritize family and community, the implications are particularly nuanced.

My personal circumstances – being single, childless, and enjoying good health – might lead some to assume I'd be more receptive to this legislation. After all, wouldn’t it be comforting to know that, should I face a debilitating illness in the future, I have an option to end my suffering on my own terms? However, the reality is far more complicated. My concern isn't solely about my own potential situation, but about the broader societal consequences.

One of my biggest worries is the subtle, yet pervasive, shift in how we view the elderly and those with disabilities. Will assisted dying inadvertently create a culture where individuals feel pressured to choose it, either by family members, healthcare providers, or even themselves, due to financial burdens or a perceived lack of value?

The safeguards proposed in the Scottish legislation – requiring multiple medical assessments, psychological evaluations, and a voluntary declaration – are undoubtedly important. But can we truly guarantee that these safeguards will always be effective in preventing coercion or undue influence? The human element, with its inherent vulnerabilities and complexities, makes absolute certainty impossible.

Furthermore, the legalisation of assisted dying could have a detrimental effect on palliative care. If assisted dying becomes a readily available option, will there be a corresponding decrease in investment in and access to high-quality palliative care services? Palliative care focuses on improving quality of life for those with serious illnesses, offering pain relief, emotional support, and spiritual guidance. It’s a holistic approach that addresses the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of patients and their families. Diminishing its importance would be a grave disservice to those who could benefit from it.

In Singapore, our healthcare system places a strong emphasis on preventative care and early intervention. We strive to maintain a high standard of living for our elderly population and to provide them with the support they need to age gracefully. Legalising assisted dying would represent a divergence from this ethos, potentially signaling a shift towards a more utilitarian approach to end-of-life care.

While I respect the Scottish Parliament's decision and acknowledge the genuine compassion that underlies it, I urge policymakers in Singapore and elsewhere to proceed with extreme caution. We must ensure that any discussions about assisted dying are grounded in a deep understanding of the ethical, social, and cultural implications, and that the rights and dignity of all individuals, especially the most vulnerable, are protected. The conversation needs to be more than just about individual choice; it needs to be about the kind of society we want to build – one that values life, supports the elderly, and prioritizes compassionate care for all.