We cross this line in the sand at our peril: a bishop’s response to assisted dying

Crossing the threshold and allowing medical assistance for a person’s suicide is not a matter to be decided for a few people in particularly tragic situations.

Proponents of Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill argue that it will provide the
means to alleviate suffering for those in the latter stages of terminal illness. The term
‘assisted dying’ is euphemistic and obscures the actions which this Bill will permit,
assisting another person’s suicide. This Bill will permit a doctor to prescribe a lethal
combination of drugs which will intentionally cause death when swallowed and
enable suicide. Nobody wants to see people suffer but this Bill has the potential to
cause wide distress, fear and suffering at many different levels of society.

My experience as a Catholic priest means that I have been privileged and humbled
to accompany people through their terminal illness towards death. Many have been
supported with good pain relief and have found this a time of healing in relationships,
spiritual care and preparation for death as ‘letting go’ and surrendering into the
embrace of a Merciful God. It is a graced time when a person’s last breath reveals a
deep mystery.

People speak of the death of a family member with love and grief. I accept that there
are some who will disagree with this view and argue that their illness causes
unbearable suffering for which assisted suicide is the only solution. It is well-known
that legislation based on hard cases makes bad law. Crossing the threshold and
allowing medical assistance for a person’s suicide is not a matter to be decided for a
few people in particularly tragic situations.

Kim Leadbeater promises strict safeguards, but her Bill raises grave concerns for
society, and we simply must learn from other countries where similar safeguards
were promised. In jurisdictions where such laws have been introduced, we have
seen the rapid expansion of the categories to allow people to end their lives by
assisted suicide.

In particular, the much-quoted statistics from Belgium and Canada are deeply
shocking. It is clear that such a pattern could very well occur rapidly in this country
as already many propose that the provision of the law should be extended to people
who are not terminally ill, and others suggest that even those suffering with dementia
could be assisted to commit suicide. Individual consent is much debated, the danger
of coercion is real, and the need to limit healthcare resources might easily lead to
greater accessibility on wider grounds.

This Bill will fundamentally alter the relationship between doctor and patient. The
profession of the doctor changes from preserving life and providing care to include
terminating life and causing death. This will put undue pressure on those who are
vulnerable and fear being a burden to others.

The public debate has not sufficiently focused on the impact of a change of
legislation for the wide range of healthcare professionals, whom I meet in pastoral
situations. These include those staff working in hospices, dedicated nurses, and care workers who often have no voice in decision making and whose Christian or Muslim
faith is deeply precious to them. How will their freedom of conscience be protected?
Recently a consultant asked how his conscience would be protected since much of
his work in hospitals is within a multi-disciplinary team. He said that it would be
difficult to isolate one person from the team and protect his or her integrity. He asked
whether ‘free zones’ against assisted suicide would be needed?

I am deeply concerned that the Bill to be debated on tomorrow was only published
recently (11th November), leaving less than 20 days for reflection and discussion.
Lord Darzi’s Independent Report (September 2024) speaks of the NHS as being ‘in
serious trouble’ and identifies the need to rebuild ‘public trust and confidence’ in the
health care system.

The Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said that the ‘NHS is broken’ and that he
could not vote for this Bill because the NHS is not in a fit state to offer due choice.
Hospices are under pressure and there is a shortage of places. This is not the
context in which we should debate this dangerous Bill which has the potential to
further weaken public trust and confidence.

The 1993/4 House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics stated, ‘the
prohibition on intentional killing is the cornerstone of law and of social relationships…
It protects each one of us impartially, embodying the belief that we are all equal.’ We
cross this line in the sand at our peril.