Bishops warn House of Lords against legalising assisted suicide

The queue to see the Queen lying in state could stretch five miles. (Photo: Getty/iStock)
Bishops were among the members of the House of Lords speaking out against plans to legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales. 
Over 90 peers addressed the Lords on Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on the first day of a two-day debate that is to continue next week. 
The bill passed the House of Commons by a narrow margin and is now being scrutinised by the Lords.
The Bishop of London and former government Chief Nursing Officer, Dame Sarah Mullally, told peers that the bill was “deeply flawed”.
In a powerful speech to the Lords, she said that “to change the law is to change society”. 
“Any law that introduces choice for a few is not limited in its effect to only those few. If passed, the bill will signal that we are a society that believes that some lives are not worth living,” she said. 
“The bill would become our state-endorsed position, and our NHS would be active in its delivery. It is the role of the House to scrutinise, but there are no amendments to the bill that could safeguard us completely from its negative effects.” 
She then went on to outline her serious concerns with the proposals. 
“I am concerned for those who will face internal and subtle pressure to end their lives in the absence of adequate palliative and social care or to avoid being a burden to their families,” she said.
“I understand the fear of many that they may be offered free assisted death before they are offered the care and equipment that they may live. I am concerned that we are still in the dark about how the bill will be integrated into a struggling health and social care system, as the Delegated Powers Committee report has shown. 
“I am concerned that the bill is unequal to the task of preventing avoidable deaths due to the existing problems of discrimination, inequality and abuse. I am deeply concerned that so many in Parliament are not heeding the voices of professional and representative bodies that are raising the alarm. 
“Above all, the bill fails in its central claim that it delivers choice. A meaningful choice would see the measures in the Bill set alongside equally available, fully funded palliative and social care services. Without that being offered, this choice is an illusion.”
The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, pointed to the experience of New Zealand – where she formerly served as Bishop of Waikato. Assisted suicide became legal in New Zealand four years ago following a binding referendum in 2020. Yet the recent five-year review found that a lack of clarity persists in legal definitions and operating principles. 
Dr Hartley said it would be “irresponsible” to ignore New Zealand’s findings, and that it was troubling that the UK Parliament was considering passing into law legislation with a similar lack of clarity. 
“Only recently, New Zealand published its five-year review of the Act, highlighting significant practical challenges, concluding that the review committee is ineffective as an oversight body and recommending reforms. Five years on from the passing of a bill much like the one before us, it would be irresponsible not to take its findings seriously,” she said. 
“Most strikingly, the report highlights confused principles for the service and even recommends that the New Zealand Government establish specific principles to underpin the Act.
“This is no small matter—to be five years into providing the service without clarity on the principles on which it was built.
“For legislation where the consequences of poor drafting are so high, it is alarming that such principles were not defined from the outset.
“Yet, almost a year into the passage of this Private Member’s Bill, we are still discussing core concepts, without sufficient detail on how a state-sponsored suicide service would be implemented. 
“That should trouble us all.”
Lord Biggar, who is also an Anglican priest and theologian, said the bill would not fix the “tragic dilemma” of end of life suffering. He warned that it would leave “poorer and less white” terminally ill people with the choice of “grievous suffering and killing themselves”.
“If we were serious about reducing the quantity of human suffering, we would not focus on assisted suicide at all, reckoned to be chosen annually by up to 7,500 people after a decade,” he said. 
“Instead, we would focus on ensuring the universal provision of adequate palliative care, which, as we have been told several times today, more than 100,000 fellow citizens every year need but do not get.
“We have known that for decades and done nothing about it.”