The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, has today written to all MPs whose constituencies fall within Southwark Diocese to raise the concerns that he believes to be most pressing as they approach the third reading of the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Commons on Friday 20 June.
In particular, he raises concerns about:
- The lack of availability of proper palliative care – stating that, without proper palliative care, there is no real choice for those at the end of life
- The risk that people will choose assisted dying because they fear becoming a burden to others
- The risks of coercion and abuse – especially to women
He has also written to clergy and lay leaders across the diocese, urging them to pray for all MPs, that they will deliberate with care, wisdom and sensitivity – and for all those who are made vulnerable by this debate.
The full text of the letter is below:
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Now that the Bill reaches Third Reading in the House of Commons, I want to take the opportunity to share with the Members of Parliament whose constituencies fall wholly or partly within the boundaries of the Diocese of Southwark those points that I believe to be most relevant as you give the Bill its final consideration at this stage.
Please let me say at the outset I fully understand the plea for the dignity of life through to our last breath. Indeed, I fully believe in it. I have ministered to people with terminal illness and at the point of death and I continue to do so. I also understand the argument for complete autonomy in determining one’s life and its passing. I do not share that view in its entirety. For me such an outlook does not acknowledge life as a gift in creation or life in relationship with others. There are, of course, those who do wish such autonomy and seek a principled and dignified end to life at a time of one’s choosing. But as the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown put it in The Guardian Newspaper on Tuesday, “There is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available.” Mr Brown is, of course, referring to the lack of provision for palliative care. Without a proper system of palliative care, there is no proper choice.
As Dr Sarah Cox, the President of the Association of Palliative Medicine, stated in evidence to the select committee on the Bill, around 100,000 people a year in the UK who require palliative care die without it. Hospice UK, as Gordon Brown points out, warned that one in five of its members were planning to cut services last year, and evidence this year from individual hospices is that such pressure is intensifying.
On average, a hospice patient is publicly funded for less than a third of the cost. The rest is covered by charitable donations or private funding. I do not decry the origin or the basis of the Hospice Movement with which I have been associated for many years. The first, set up by Dame Cicely Saunders is in this diocese. But they are on a charitable basis and often a Christian foundation and cannot treat all from their own resources. It follows that the proposals in the Bill will privilege those with supportive families and substantial private means. Those who fear becoming a burden to their families because they must dispose of assets to fund care, may feel pressurised to consider assisted dying. It is worth bearing in mind that in the US State of Oregon, of those surveyed and availing themselves of assisted dying,12% reported themselves to be a burden. In 2023, this figure had risen to 43%. Data from Oregon lists financial pressures as a factor as to why people choose assisted dying.
There is a further consideration, one which this Bill has tried to exclude. That of coercion. There are those who exist in a network of supportive families, friends and other social frameworks, such as faith communities. Others do not. Some are neglected by their families or are even abused by them. Others are in coercive relationships. This is disproportionately experienced by women. This – combined with the lack of palliative care – will mean disproportionate outcomes for the most vulnerable in our society. I do not think we can be as sanguine about identifying coercion as the Bill sets out in such cases as some have suggested.
It is not surprising, therefore, that MPs from a BAME/GMH background who are attuned to issues around disproportionality, were particularly sceptical at Second Reading and that a majority of them registered a vote against the Bill. Florence Eshalomi MP for Vauxhall and Camberwell (within this diocese) spoke powerfully at Second Reading, “Put simply, we should be helping people to live comfortable, pain-free lives on their own terms before we think about making it easier for them to die.”
This Bill is one of enormous consequence. Whatever one’s fundamental beliefs, to pursue its provisions without addressing the considerable gap in palliative care will, in many cases, to be offering no choice at all, except an early death at a time other than one would wish to choose, driven by anxiety or by coercion.
There is enormous good intent on all sides of the argument. I wish you well in your deliberation and please be assured of my prayers.
Yours sincerely,
The Right Reverend Christopher Chessun
The Bishop of Southwark
