The Bishop of Southwark, The Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, writes:
A proposed law to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales ran out of time on 24 April and cannot complete all of the stages required to become law in the current session of parliament. The bill stalled in the House of Lords after the House of Commons supported allowing terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to seek medical help to end their life, subject to certain safeguards.
That the Bill did not complete its passage through the House of Lords has been portrayed by some who supported it as a cynical ploy to put an end to a popular measure by tabling over 1,000 amendments and filibustering (talking out) the Bill rather than letting it be voted through.
However, as a member of the House of Lords who has been present for the many debates and discussions of this Bill, I can confidently say that there was no cynicism, no ploy, and no talking out. Instead, the Lords did their job with care and diligence. Members of the House of all perspectives – those in favour of assisted dying as well as those ideologically opposed to it – scrutinised the Bill carefully, considering its implications, both for wider society and for those most vulnerable in our communities. They explored, with integrity, how the worst such implications might be avoided.
No one can deny that the Bill was a well-intentioned measure brought by those seeking to relieve suffering at end of life. But it quickly ran into problems.
Firstly, there are those of us who regard life as sacred and the creation of more choice in this area as a dangerous move towards categorising some lives as not worth living, less valuable than other lives.
Secondly, there are those who are willing to consider, in principle, the provision of medical assistance to end a person’s life under certain conditions – but are fearful that this particular Bill would leave too many people vulnerable. It is commonly believed that individuals (disproportionately women and those of Global Majority Heritage) would be especially vulnerable to coercion by others to end their lives, as well as more subtle concerns about ‘being a burden’ to loved ones.
Both groups, in practice, sought similar amendments so that if a Bill were to pass, it could be the safest possible legislation under the circumstances, even if some of us would prefer no Bill at all.
A further reason that the Bill has fallen was the mounting evidence, not least from medical professionals, of the problems that the Bill in its current form posed. This became more evident once the Bill had reached the House of Lords, which insisted that more time would be required to explore these concerns. The simple reality is that the proposed amendments considered by the Lords were numerous because the Bill had numerous problems: from trying to exclude the Coroner from providing oversight, to procedures around critical preliminary discussions with medical practitioners, amendments to protect those suffering from eating disorders and many, many more.
In relation to Assisted Dying, no Bill will always be better than a Bill that cannot be made as safe, fair and protective as possible – and that this work cannot be completed without careful and serious consideration being given to the provision of palliative care for all people. It remains my view that, as former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pointed out, that can be no effective choice for terminally-ill people in relation to Assisted Dying if the alternative – high quality palliative care – is not available to all. For around 100,000 people a year, this is the terrible reality.
