A new private member’s bill from Labour’s Kim Leadbeater MP, on assisted dying, is to be introduced into parliament on 16 October 2024. The details are not entirely clear at this moment, but it seems likely that if passed, it would allow a terminally ill patient who has around six months to live to request death by assisted suicide.
The last parliamentary vote on Assisted Dying was in September 2015, with 118 MPs voting in favour and 330 against.
Previous polling has suggested the public may support some form of assisted suicide, but this support declines when people consider the arguments against introducing it.
So with the conversation suddenly back in the public discourse, how might we approach this issue as Christians?
With compassion
We lead with empathy. The desire to remove pain and end suffering is an understandable one. Death, illness and suffering are common experiences within all our families, whatever our politics or religion.
Compassion means we want to listen carefully and respectfully, speak boldly and kindly, and avoid this becoming a culture war. But this issue is also deeply personal and pastoral. Our faith and our humanity compel us into solidarity with, and tender care for, those who are suffering in our communities.
Christians were at the beginning and are still often at the forefront of the hospice and palliative care movements. We continue to give dignity to each person in the final days of their life.
While all deaths are sad, we know that some come as sweet relief under the circumstances. Yet compassion leads us to end suffering, not the life of the one who is suffering. Assisted dying is an entirely different medical, legal and ethical measure to withdrawing treatment, or the doctrine of double effect in which pain management is the primary motive and a secondary effect could be the shortening of life.
"Our faith and our humanity compel us into solidarity with, and tender care for, those who are suffering in our communities."
With conviction
As Christians, the Bible shapes our approach to everything, from its sweeping narrative, to personal stories, wisdom, laws, history and poetry.
Our conviction is not hard, cold and judgemental, but a hopeful belief that God’s Word and His ways are good, true and beautiful.
The scriptures begin with the God who created the earth and humanity. Life is a gift, not a cosmic fluke. People are valuable, made in His very image, embodied with significance, and invited into connection, presence and participation with God, each other and the world around us.
God appoints our days, our lives and ultimately, they are not our own, they belong to the Lord. Many people are scared of losing their autonomy and becoming dependant on others. This is understandable, but we believe that true community means that we care for those who are vulnerable and cannot care for themselves, rather than helping them to end their life.
As well as a specific command not to murder, there are specific commands in scripture to take care of those who are sick and suffering. There are also specific promises that the Lord will be with us in suffering, in the valley of the shadow of death and in paradise on the other side.
Death and suffering are awful realities in the biblical story, consequences of the fall affecting our bodies, minds and all of creation. God often works His purposes even in and through suffering. Jesus wept when His friend died, He draws near to us in suffering through His Holy Spirit.
God accommodated Himself to human form; Jesus dwelling with us, suffering and dying. Then came the resurrection, the transfiguration of death itself into life. The breaking in of the new creation here and now. Of course, we see issues of life and death differently, because we are in intimate relationship with the Lord who holds it all together and is making it all new.
With caution
While the desire to end suffering is simple and good, this quickly becomes an incredibly complex conversation involving the practices of medicine and law, but also philosophy, politics and public policy. In an age where Artificial Intelligence is likely to be helping us make more and more decisions around how to most efficiently use scarce resources, we need to be aware and cautious of solutions that seek to ultimately solve deeply human problems like suffering and death.
"...The Lord will be with us in suffering, in the valley of the shadow of death and in paradise on the other side."
Who would we trust to administer death to vulnerable people? There will be concerns if it is overseen by the government and NHS doctors and additional concerns if private businesses are able to offer their services. There is a real risk that death becomes the ultimate consumer choice, with a market which might be willing to offer their products.
The slippery slope argument is often immediately shut down as fearmongering. However, on this issue there is good precedence for us to be concerned. Canada is another Western nation with some historic and cultural similarities. Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) was introduced there in 2016, originally for terminally ill people who had unbearable suffering and whose death was imminent. In 2021, this was expanded to include those with serious and chronic conditions which are not life-threatening. In 2027, the legislation is set to be changed to include those suffering from a mental illness with no physical condition. In Holland, a person must be experiencing ​‘unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement’, which has been understood to include mental illness. Earlier this year, doctors in Holland approved a request for euthanasia from a 29-year-old woman who suffered from chronic depression and anxiety.
Another example of the slippery slope in law and medical practice in the UK is abortion. It’s legal introduction in 1967 was argued on medical grounds to be used in rare cases where a woman’s life or health was in danger, the baby may not survive or in cases involving rape and incest. However, this year there were over 250,000 abortions in Great Britain and in 98% of cases, there was no medical threat to the life or physical health of the women or baby.
One campaign for assisted dying, using the ​‘My death, my decision’ tagline even mimics the ​‘My body, my choice’ slogan of pro-choice campaigners. It seems that once medical and legal provisions have been made for assisted dying, on the basis of autonomy, equality, human rights and compassion, it is hard to limit the decision to ​‘medical necessity’.
These experiences show that once introduced as a legal option, the ​‘choice’ becomes culturally acceptable and increasingly difficult to object to. If this happens, we lose something vitally important and difficult to recover – the communal value of each individual life.
There are obvious potential impacts on those with particular vulnerabilities including people suffering from mental illness, the elderly and those who are disabled. Several anti-suicide and disability campaigners like Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson are already raising concerns. Individuals in other places have reported feeling like they are a burden, and that they feel pressure from family, doctors or society not to take up more resources. Medical professionals who wish to conscientiously object also report pressure on them to conform and share the burden.
In a country with an ageing population and extreme pressure on the NHS, if assisted dying were an option, it would offer the temptation to divert resources from for example; palliative care, the elderly, those who are disabled, mentally ill, into other urgent needs.
This is a very complex issue. We encourage you to pray, think, read and talk about these things more in the days ahead. Let’s be compassionate, full of gracious conviction and cautious, given the current pressures and lessons from other places.
