You can glean a lot from the way someone characterises their opponents in a debate. Do they engage with them constructively, assuming the best about their motives? Or imply they are acting out of bad faith? It’s telling that Kim Leadbeater, the MP who’s brought forward the bill to legalise assisted dying, seems to have gone for the latter approach.
There could not be more at stake: legalising the prescription of lethal drugs to terminally ill people raises the spectre of vulnerable people being wrongfully subjected to an assisted death with state assistance. It is critical that the bill’s proponents engage constructively with the doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, lawyers and domestic abuse experts who have this concern. Yet Leadbeater appears affronted by the opposition to her bill; she has characterised it as “noise”, described those who oppose her change in the law as unconstructive, and has complained about their “clear mobilisation”. (Yes, when people are worried that legislation could have tragic consequences, that’s what they do.) The implication seemingly being that, unless you agree with her on the principle, there’s no legitimate role for you in scrutinising her bill.
