Assisted Suicide

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I wish to speak with you today about the process in which our Parliament is currently considering legalising assisted suicide through the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. As I have made clear earlier in this debate, as Catholics we have maintained a principled objection to this change in law recognising that every human life is sacred, coming as a gift of God and bearing a God-given dignity. We are, therefore, clearly opposed to this Bill in principle, elevating, as it does, the autonomy of the individual above all other considerations.

The passage of the Bill through Parliament will lead to a vote in late April on whether it progresses further. This will be a crucial moment and I, together with all the Bishops of England and Wales, am writing to ask your support in urging your MP to vote against this Bill at that time.

There are serious reasons for doing so. At this point we wish not simply to restate our objections in principle, but to emphasise the deeply flawed process undergone in Parliament thus far. We wish to remind you that it is a fundamental duty of every MP to ensure that legislation is not imposed on our society which has not been properly scrutinised and which will bring about damaging consequences.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will fundamentally change many of the key relationships in our way of life: within the family, between doctor and patient, within the health service. Yet there has been no Royal Commission or independent inquiry ahead of its presentation. It is a Private Member’s Bill. The Bill itself is long and complex and was published just days before MPs voted on it, giving them inadequate time to consult or reflect upon it. The time for debate was minimal. The Committee examining the Bill took only three days of evidence: not all voices were heard, and it comprises an undue number of supporters of the Bill. In short, this is no way to legislate on such an important and morally complex issue.

One consequence of this flawed process is that many vital questions remain unanswered. Can MPs guarantee that the scope of the Bill will not be extended? In almost every country where assisted suicide has been introduced the current scope is wider than was originally intended. What role, if any, will the judiciary have in the process? We were told that judicial oversight was a necessary and vital part of the process; now we are told it isn’t needed at all. What will protect the vulnerable from coercion, or from feeling a burden on family? Can the National Health Service cope with assisted suicide or will it, as the Health Secretary has warned, cause cuts elsewhere in the NHS? Can MPs guarantee that no medical practitioner or care worker would be compelled to take part in assisted suicide? Would this mean the establishment of a ‘national death service’?

In contrast to the provisions of this Bill, what is needed is first-class, compassionate palliative care at the end of our lives. This is already provided to many in our society but, tragically, is in short supply and underfunded. No-one should be dispatched as a burden to others. Instead, a good society would prioritise care for the elderly, the vulnerable, and the weak. The lives of our families are richer for cherishing their presence.

It is sad reflection on Parliament’s priorities that the House of Commons spent far more time debating the ban on fox hunting than it is spending debating bringing in assisted suicide.

I am sure that you will share these concerns. It is now clear that this measure is being rushed without proper scrutiny and without fundamental questions surrounding safeguards being answered. This is a deeply flawed Bill with untold unintended consequences.

Every MP, and government, has a solemn duty to prevent such legislation reaching the statute book. So I appeal to you: even if you have written before, please make contact now with your MP and ask them to vote against this Bill not only on grounds of principle but because of the failure of Parliament to approach this issue in an adequate and responsible manner.

In his Letter to the Philippians, from which we heard in the Second Reading, St Paul reflects on the difficulties and responsibilities of life. He speaks of ‘pressing on’ and ‘striving’ for the fulness of life promised in Christ Jesus. Yet he is totally confident in his struggles because, as he says, ‘Christ Jesus has made me his own’.

We too have many struggles. We too know that Christ Jesus has made us his own. So we too press on with this struggle, so important in our times.

May God bless you all.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols
Archbishop of Westminster
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Cardinal Nichols, President of the Bishops’ Conference and Archbishop of Westminster, has called the way in which the assisted suicide bill is being handled “deeply irresponsible” and a “shambles”.

Speaking to Christian Fellowship, a group at News UK, the Cardinal expressed serious concern that MPs had only spent a few hours debating assisted suicide, when they spent more than a hundred times longer debating banning fox hunting in 2004.

He said:

“I believe it is deeply irresponsible of any government to allow a change of this magnitude to be carried out without due, proper, government-supported parliamentary process”.

He added:

“I think what’s happening, if it came to pass, would be the biggest change that this country has seen for many, many decades at least, probably more. On the back of what – five, six, seven hours’ debate?

“I was told that the fox hunting bill [in 2004] endured 700 hours of debate.”

Despite these concerns, he hoped that the bill could still be defeated as it makes it way through the Houses of Parliament: “I don’t think that story’s over yet.”

The Hunting Act 2004 passed after 700 hours of parliamentary debate and a government inquiry – the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill, passed on November 29 by 330 to 275 last year after five hours of debate.

Cardinal Nichols added that there was “something deeply lacking in a government that isn’t prepared to guide and sponsor, if it wants to, this process of legal change”.

In October last year, Cardinal Nichols issued a pastoral letter to his diocese, encouraging Catholics to contact their MPs ahead of the debate.

In it, he raised concerns “the right to die can become a duty to die”.

He said:

“Once assisted suicide is approved by the law, a key protection of human life falls away. Pressure mounts on those who are nearing death, from others or even from themselves, to end their life in order to take away a perceived burden of care from their family, for the avoidance of pain, or for the sake of an inheritance”.

He added:

“The radical change in the law now being proposed risks bringing about for all medical professionals a slow change from a duty to care to a duty to kill.”

Following the decision of MPs to vote in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at the Second Reading today (29 November), Bishop John Sherrington, Lead Bishop for Life Issues, said:

“We are disappointed that MPs have voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill progressing through parliament. We believe that this bill is flawed in principle and also contains particular clauses that are of concern. We ask the Catholic community to pray that members of parliament will have the wisdom to reject this bill at a later stage in its progress.

“In addition to being opposed to the principle of assisted suicide, we are particularly concerned with clauses in the bill that prevent doctors from properly exercising conscientious objection, provide inadequate protection to hospices and care homes that do not wish to participate in assisted suicide and allow doctors to initiate conversations about assisted suicide. We ask that these voices be heard in the next stages of the Bill to strengthen the deep concerns about this proposed legislation.

“We have expressed the view, during this debate, that genuine compassion involves walking with those who need care, especially during sickness, disability and old age. The vocation to care is at the heart of the lives of so many people who look after their loved ones and is the sign of a truly compassionate society. It is essential that we nurture and renew the innate call that many people have to compassionately care for others.

“It remains the case that improving the quality and availability of palliative care offers the best pathway to reducing suffering at the end of life. We will continue to advocate for this and support those who work tirelessly to care for the dying in our hospices, hospitals and care homes.”

The Passing of this bill is deeply disappointing and indicates a worrying trend of how we look out for the most vulnerable in our country, especially those with disabilities, the sick and the elderly. I hope that with further reflection our society will recognise this is not the way to go.