NO LAW to permit assisted dying can safeguard against the danger that folks seek to die because they feel like a burden on their family members, the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, has told the parliamentary committee scrutinising the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
In written evidence submitted to the committee in January, and published by Church House on Friday, Bishop Mullally wrote that the “Church of England’s opposition . . . is rooted within the impact the Bill would have on probably the most vulnerable members of society”.
In the submission, Bishop Mullally argued that the Bill didn’t contain safeguards against people in search of to die because they felt that that they had develop into a burden — and that she didn’t imagine that any law allowing assisted dying could achieve this.
The availability of assisted dying would “change societal attitudes to the tip of life”, Bishop Mullally argued within the six-page submission. “There is a likelihood that folks shall be pushed to contemplate assisted suicide by a combination of care needs and financial pressures,” she wrote.
In relation to the importance of palliative care, Bishop Mullaly, referring to her nursing experience, said that she was confident that “within the overwhelming majority of cases we were in a position to provide our patients with a great death”.
Painful deaths had decreased “markedly” because of recent advances in palliative care, and guarantees of additional funding for this area of drugs were “very welcome”, Bishop Mullally said.
None the less, “long-term funding challenges”, in addition to public perception that the NHS was broken, meant that there was a “real risk that those at the tip of life will feel like a financial burden to family, friends, and the services that take care of them”.
This shouldn’t be the case, Bishop Mullally said: “The irreducible value of each human person signifies that nobody is a burden, every life is precious, every life is worthy of care. No one should feel compelled to hasten their very own death.”
Disabled people were particularly prone to being offered assisted dying, “in a way which either implicitly or explicitly makes them feel like a burden”, she said, and argued that existing health inequalities were prone to be exacerbated by its introduction.
Although Bishop Mullally stated that, in her view, the Bill couldn’t be made acceptable, she suggested three areas through which its impact “is perhaps made less harmful”.
These include removing a clause allowing medical practitioners to boost the potential of assisted dying, and adding an obligation for the assessing doctor to refer an applicant if there may be any doubt as to that person’s capability to make a call.
She also called for a widening of the scope for health-care staff to object conscientiously to any involvement in assisted-dying cases.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed to the Committee Stage after a vote within the House of Commons last November (News, 29 November 2024).
C of E bishops have been distinguished amongst those raising concerns in regards to the Bill (News, 2 December 2024).
Bishop Mullally, a former Chief Nursing Officer and the C of E’s lead bishop on healthcare, made the submission on behalf of bishops within the Church of England and the Archbishops’ Council. General Synod resolutions expressing opposition to allowing assisted dying are cited firstly.
In 2022, the Synod voted, by a big majority, against a change in the present law that makes euthanasia illegal, although guidance says that breaches must be prosecuted provided that that is within the “public interest” (News, 11 July 2022).
This is reflected in Bishop Mullally’s submission to the committee, which concludes that the “safeguard which best protects the irreducible value of all people is undoubtedly the present law”.
Concerns in regards to the management of the Committee Stage, including the choice of members and witnesses, have previously been raised by commentators (Comment, 31 January).
Evidence continues to be considered. The Bill is next because of be debated within the House of Commons on 18 and 19 March
