This Is No Way To Legislate

Cardinal Vincent Nichols writes:

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 fullness 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

And 109 signatories write:

We write as a group of women of faith from different traditions and backgrounds passionate about care for people in vulnerable situations, many of whom have dedicated our professional lives to preventing male violence against women and girls.

We hold a variety of views on the principle of legalising assisted dying. However, we are all clear that the current legislation – The Terminally Ill Adults Bill – progressing through parliament, has insufficient safeguards to protect some of the most marginalised in society, particularly women subjected to gender–based violence, and abuse by a partner, who also experience intersecting barriers to a full and safe life.

We are concerned that the proposed legislation could create a new tool to harm vulnerable women, particularly those being subjected to domestic abuse and coercive control, by helping them to end their lives.

A report out last month showed that the number of domestic abuse victims who died by suicide in England and Wales was higher than the number of people killed by their abusive partner, for the second year running.

We know too that domestic abuse victims who are also women of faith can face a particular form of abuse at the hands of their perpetrators, who may weaponise theologies and culture to harm and control their victims. We are concerned that the assisted dying legislation, as it stands, fails to take account of how faith and its role at the end of life, as well as its use by both perpetrators and the women they abuse, create complex dynamics that can lead to vulnerable women, who may also hold strong religious beliefs, seeing no way out but death.

We know that poverty and other inequalities increase the risk of women and girls being subjected to violence, ill health and the quality of care and support they receive from statutory institutions and civil society. We know too that in a society riven with inequalities, women who are from Black and minoritised communities, disabled women, migrant women and working–class women, struggle to be heard. Their voices are absent from conversations about this bill, and so too are those subjective to coercive control or violence. It is unclear to us how the legislation and its consultative process has taken account of the multiplicity of faiths, cultures, socio–economic and health backgrounds of our citizens and women who make up our country.

Much of the debate inside and outside parliament has been conducted by those empowered to speak of the importance of personal choice, without consideration of those who struggle to be heard in the public square. It is the voices of the unheard, ignored, and marginalised that we are compelled by our faith traditions and scriptures to listen and draw attention to, in the pursuit of good law–making for the common good – legislation that considers and protects the most vulnerable, not just those who speak loudest.

Having followed the progress of the bill through parliament, we are particularly concerned about:

• The risk that people (mainly women) with controlling and abusive partners (mainly men) will be coerced into assisted death. While we welcome the adopted amendments that stipulate training for the assessing doctors and the panel members, this safeguard only comes into play after someone has already been coerced into declaring that they want an assisted death, and will clearly not catch all cases. We also know, from research and experience, that coercive control is a long–term process that is both insidious and subtle with women often unaware of it until the perpetrator’s behaviour escalates. 
• The reality that since 2016, deaths by suicide have been included in the scope of domestic homicide reviews and there is growing research on women who die by suicide as directly linked to having an abusive partner. We are concerned that if this legislation passes, women may seek assisted deaths to end their suffering at the hands of an abuser. Domestic Homicide Reviews also reveal the disproportionate number of Black and minoritised women who are failed by statutory and state agencies like the police, social services, health services and specialist services like substance misuse and mental health and women’s services despite their calls for help.
• There are no longer High Court protections embedded in the Bill.
• There are insufficient protections for those with learning disabilities and people with anorexia.
• The use of the vehicle of the Private Member’s Bill for this landmark legislation. This has resulted in the impact assessment being shared after the Bill Committee stage, which makes it difficult for all of us with concerns about inequalities to gauge how this legislation will affect Black and minoritised and faith communities, people with disabilities, and those experiencing economic disadvantage.

If assisted dying is seen as a response to alleviate suffering, without addressing the underlying structural issues that make life difficult and safeguard against harm, it could put undue pressure on vulnerable women to choose death over inadequate care.

This is no way to legislate, especially not on matters of life and death. We have serious concerns about the bill and its lack of safeguards. The bill has too much potential to hurt vulnerable people and so we are uniting as women from across faith traditions to speak up for vulnerable women, including victims of violence against women and girls, and disabled women, and raise our concerns publicly.