“THIS is a line our nation must not cross,” was the message from the General Synod, after it voted, by a major majority, to sentence a Bill to legalise assisted dying currently working its way through Parliament.
The motion, introduced by the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, called on the Government to spice up funding for palliative care as a substitute of enacting the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which was passed within the House of Commons by a narrow majority last month (News, 27 June).
The motion was passed in a counted vote of the entire Synod, 238-7 with seven recorded abstentions, on Tuesday. It was a late addition to the Synod agenda.
Bishop Mullally, who leads the Church of England’s work on healthcare, has repeatedly spoken strongly against the Bill. Opening the controversy, she reiterated her opposition to each the principle of assisted suicide and the risks that this particular laws posed to the vulnerable.
In the context of only 30 per cent of hospice care being funded by the NHS, it was “unthinkable” that the state should decide to fund an assisted-suicide service, she said. “A Church whose hands are consecrated to bring life cannot support the prescription of life-ending drugs.”
Speaker after speaker rose to echo her concerns. Many warned that, if the Bill became law, it will result in the elderly and unwell selecting an assisted death, out of fear that they were a “burden” to family members or the health service.
Others shared stories of journeying with friends and relatives of their final days, and of the blessings present in these times.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, spoke movingly about holding the hand of his father, who would have qualified for an assisted death under the laws, as he died a number of months ago. Bishop North said that he realised afresh in those moments how “utterly unsuitable it will be to remove life, which is a present from God. . . Undermining life in any context takes away something of its beauty and its mystery.”
The Revd Paul Cartwright (Leeds) told the Synod that he had been admitted to palliative care back in 2009 and may need been considered to have a “life not price living”. Had he ended his life then, he would never have seen his children grow up.
The Bill would result in a slippery slope, he warned; assisted dying could be prolonged from the terminally sick to the depressed and disabled. “This isn’t selection, it’s pressure; it’s not mercy, it’s abandonment.”
Several doctors on the Synod drew on their clinical experience to criticise the Bill’s provisions and safeguards, cautioning that it will usher vulnerable patients towards an early death reasonably than towards the support they needed to live well within the time they’d left.
Others pointed to the theological value of dependence, and urged the Church to withstand a culture that saw being a burden on others as “intolerable”.
Fiona MacMillan (London) spoke passionately in regards to the example of Canada, which had swiftly jettisoned any requirement to be terminally sick, and now usually saw disabled people offered assisted suicide reasonably than funding for supported living.
There were a handful of contrary voices, including Philip Baldwin (London), who argued that helping those that suffered to die well was “loving, kind and compassionate” and thoroughly Christian. Allen Dowen (Chester) agreed, expressing incredulity that folks were capable of advance the death of their pets compassionately but not their dying relatives. Giving people permission to finish their very own suffering was an act of affection, “so can it really be contrary to God’s law?” he asked.
Most members were unconvinced, nonetheless, and voted for Bishop Mullally’s motion. In her summing up, the Bishop pledged to work with the opposite Lords Spiritual to interact deeply with the Bill within the House of Lords, where it was introduced last month after passing through the Commons.
The full motion reads: ‘That this Synod, in light of recent debates on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, reaffirm that all and sundry is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and request His Majesty’s Government work to enhance funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services as a substitute of enacting a law that puts essentially the most vulnerable in danger.’
