EFFORTS to lobby MPs on the forthcoming free vote on a Private Member’s Bill to legalise assisted dying have intensified this week. The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, is a lead signatory to an open letter from faith leaders in opposition.
The others are the RC Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, and the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, who, like Bishop Mullally, have already expressed deep concerns concerning the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, from the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater.
The Bill, which was published earlier this month and is because of have its Second Reading within the Commons on Friday, seeks to permit life-ending medical help for terminally unwell adults who haven’t any greater than six months to live, in England and Wales (News, 15 November; Comment, 22 November).
“Part of the role of religion leaders in communities is to supply spiritual and pastoral look after the sick and for the dying,” the religion leaders write. “We hold the hands of family members of their final days, we pray with families each before and after death. It is to this vocation that we’ve been called, and it’s from this vocation that we write.
“Our pastoral roles make us deeply concerned concerning the impact the bill would have on essentially the most vulnerable, opening up the potential for life-threating abuse and coercion. This is a priority we all know is shared by many individuals, with and without faith.”
Research by the charity Hourglass, referred to in government statistics, estimates that 2.7 million older people (aged 65-plus) within the UK have been subjected to abuse.
“Many of those may be vulnerable to pressure to finish their lives prematurely,” the letter argues. “Disability campaigners and people working with women in abusive relationships have also highlighted the danger of unintended consequences should the law be modified.
“The experience of jurisdictions which have introduced similar laws, reminiscent of Oregon and Canada, show how tragic these unintended consequences could be. Promised safeguards haven’t at all times protected the vulnerable and marginalised.”
There are 25 other signatories to the letter, including representatives of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh communities. It continues: “Even when surrounded by loving family and friends, people towards the tip of their life can still feel like a burden. This is particularly the case while adult social care stays underfunded. In this environment, it is straightforward to see how a ‘right to die’ could all too easily end in feeling you will have an obligation to die.
“We are convinced that the present law provides much greater security for individuals who are vulnerable than the bill before Parliament. A bill which MPs may have had only three weeks to scrutinise before they vote on it. The handiest safeguard against life-threatening coercion or abuse is to maintain the law because it is.”
The faith leaders weren’t denying that some people experienced a painful death, their letter says, “though we welcome the undeniable fact that these deaths are far less common than they was once because of advances in palliative care”.
Funding “compassionate” palliative care was the reply, they conclude. “We have seen lives end in love. Much could be lost by cutting these processes short. . .
“While there are lots of examples of fantastic palliative care on this country, it stays worryingly underfunded. Investment in palliative care is the policy of a really compassionate nation. It is the technique to be certain that everyone in society, including essentially the most vulnerable, receives the care they deserve at the tip of life.”
An analogous letter was published last week signed by 16 faith leaders in Wales, led by the Archbishop of Wales, the Most Revd Andrew John, who can be a signatory of the above letter (News, 22 November).
Writing in The Guardian on Friday, the previous Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who’s against the Bill, said that the death in 2001 of his 11-day-old daughter Jennifer had convinced him of the worth of end-of-life care, over assisted dying.
“By day 4, when the extent of her brain haemorrhage had been diagnosed, we were fully aware that each one hope was gone and that she had no likelihood of survival,” he wrote. “We could only sit together with her, hold her tiny hand and be there for her as life ebbed away. She died in our arms.
“But those days we spent together with her remain amongst essentially the most precious days of my and Sarah’s lives. The experience of sitting with a fatally unwell baby girl didn’t persuade me of the case for assisted dying; it convinced me of the worth and imperative of fine end-of-life care.”
Writing in The Times on the weekend, Dr Graham Tomlin, a former Bishop of Kensington, said that the slippery slope presented in arguments against assisted dying was “philosophically inevitable”.
“If dignity means autonomy — my ability to decide on the place, the time and the style wherein I die — there isn’t any logical reason why we should always refuse that right to someone who simply feels a bit depressed or that for whatever reason their life is not any longer value living, nevertheless much we may feel their problems are objectively trivial. With this understanding of dignity as unlimited alternative, the slippery slope is just not just likely, it’s philosophically inevitable.”
