Why is the UK Giving in to Death on Demand?

The Terminally Ill Adults – End of Life – Bill passed its second reading last Friday, and now goes on to the Committee Stage. MPs voted for it by a majority of 55, with 330 voting ‘aye’ and 275 ‘no’. Over 160 MPs had requested to speak but because it was only given five hours’ debating time, they did not all get the opportunity. section 1 is entitled ‘Assisted dying’ but goes on to state that a terminally ill person “has the capacity to make a decision to end their own life…may on request be provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with sections 5 to 22.” The correct term for ending one’s own life is ‘suicide’, not ‘dying’. Nevertheless, some MPs vehemently objected to opponents of the bill stating plainly that it would legalise assisted suicide. Take for example Cat Eccles – Labour.
The Speaker said that this was not a Point of Order. Danny Kruger then pointed out that the bill would amend the Suicide Act 1961, and ‘would allow people to assist with a suicide for the first time.’ Kruger would continue this attack on suicide later on in his speech as we shall see later. Danny Kruger (Conservative) spoke decisively against the bill at length. Indeed, his was the first major speech to oppose the bill. One thing that stands out in his speech is a passage on the role of MPs:
MPs are the safeguard for the lives of the most vulnerable people in society – this by virtue of them opposing a change in the law. MPs are responsible for upholding the value of human life, and for upholding and promoting what traditional Christian moralists call the common good. Many of the principles invoked by Kruger were echoed by others. For example, Ruth Jones (Labour) talked about the need for assisted living as opposed to assisted dying, and consequently voted against. His warning that the bill would usher in a ‘state suicide service’ was echoed by other MPs of different parties, such as Dame Meg Hillier (Labour). His statement about ‘true dignity’ is extremely significant, and rare: being cared for until the end of one’s life, rather than grasping at control. This is a Christian principle, opposing the prioritisation of absolute individual autonomy, a mirage that will always disappoint to some degree. The framing of his principles in terms of the great cloud of witnesses echoed chapter 11 of the Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. It also reminds us of those Christians who founded hospitals and hospices down the centuries. Indeed, there were no hospitals in the Roman Empire; it was Christians who pioneered them in the fourth century AD after Christianity was tolerated and persecution of Christians ceased. Hospitals and hospices are an important legacy of Christendom, of the Christian vision of the common good of society. Shadow Justice Secretary minister Robert Jenrick had very little time for the bill, having turned against assisted suicide after initially voting for it in 2015. He zeroed in on the judicial proposals:
The deliberate sidelining of next of kin in the bill text is noted here. The lack of right of appeal in the courts should come with a huge warning. Finally, the secrecy of the whole judicial process proposed should warrant great suspicion. As Christians we know the words of Jesus Himself, namely that evils that are currently hidden will in future be shouted from the rooftops (Luke 12:2-3). As a private member’s bill, the bill lacked an Impact Assessment, something that would normally be published with a government bill. Jess Asato (Labour) pointed out that women are disproportionately affected by assisted suicide across different countries and opposed the bill. There was also no impact assessment of the bill published as regards effects on disabled people.
The bill text excludes people with disabilities and mental illnesses from being deemed terminally ill. However as international experience shows it is highly likely that some would mount a campaign through the courts if not also at committee stage to remove this restriction. It is important to note that Sian Berry (Green Party) suggested an expansion to other conditions where the suffering is much longer than six months. This is an example of the slippery slope being built during the debate! Only 49 out of the 160 MPs who wanted to speak were able to do so in the debate. They should have the opportunity once the bill goes to Committee Stage. No date has as of yet been given for the Committee Stage to begin. The committee membership must be decided first. It is unlikely that it will meet before Christmas. It is striking how many MPs who voted for sending the bill onto Committee Stage were worried about its lack of safeguards, despite starting by saying they did not oppose assisted suicide in all cases on principle. There appeared to be more fear than confidence in the chamber at times. I think this shows that many MPs have a troubled conscience on assisted suicide. Analysis by the Independent suggests that at least 36 of the MPs who voted for the bill could later change their mind. The battle is still therefore very much on to defeat this bill.
As Christians we must not give into the assisted suicide agenda nor to the dishonesty of calling it ‘assisted dying’. We know that fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. We need to be able to discern what kinds of fears are the ones that we and others hold. One of the most important apologetic tasks from now on will be to show how fear of the consequences is morally right – it points not only to a concern about correct legal and administrative procedures, but to the moral foundations of good government and healthcare, and to the One who animates all our lives and makes these possible in a fallen world.The post Why is the UK Giving in to Death on Demand? first appeared on LN24.