In a surprising move, the Scottish Parliament this week voted to reject assisted suicide. And it wasn’t even close – 57 for and 69 against, with every party except the Lib Dems and the Greens having a majority voting against. Why did this happen? Especially when at the first two stages of the bill it comfortably passed. 

And therein lies the answer. As MSPs got to look more closely at what was involved, they realised that the bill itself was badly worded and had insurmountable difficulties – like compelling staff and organisations who did not want to participate in ‘mercy killing’ to do so.  

Like the threat of people feeling coerced. The bill would have made the treatment available to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who have been given less than six months to live – but opponents said there were not enough protections against coercion.  

Like the government admitting that money would have to be taken from other frontline NHS services to provide for assisted suicide.  The irony of taking money from the sick in order to kill people was not lost on some MSPs. 

Read it all.

The Scottish parliament has rejected a bill that would have seen the country introduce assisted suicide, in what is the latest victory for the vulnerable the world over in recent weeks, writes JASON OSBORNEhttps://t.co/PdDInXhp1z

— gript (@griptmedia) March 19, 2026

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country.

On Tuesday evening, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) rejected, by 69 votes to 57, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, which had been introduced by Liam McArthur MSP. The Bill sought to allow an assisted death for terminally ill adults who had decision-making capacity and had six months or less to live.

In a statement issued shortly after the vote, Ms Frew said: “I recognise that the outcome will be a disappointment to many, but it was clear that the safeguards included did not offer sufficient protection.

“We have been consistent in our position that we need to prioritise the development of excellent palliative care services that are universally available and fully funded. Without that, had the Bill passed, we would fear that many vulnerable people might have seen an assisted death as their only realistic option.”

Read it all.

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country#churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/NhNTeIZ6GR

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 18, 2026

The BBC reported on Monday that 100 Labour MPs had written to the Prime Minister arguing that, if assisted dying legislation does not pass, trust in politics will be undermined.

But the Labour MP Jessica Asato, who opposes the Bill, told the BBC: “The sponsor of the Bill has rejected 99 per cent of suggested improvements and amendments in the House of Lords and so it still contains all the same faults and issues. Any MP that voted to push this Bill through would do so knowing that it is unsafe and would harm vulnerable people.”

A new Whitestone poll of more than 2000 UK adults for Care Not Killing shows that the public wants Parliament to prioritise safety over choice.

Asked if they would support a law that enabled patient choice, but was implemented in a way that put other patients and vulnerable people at risk, respondents opposed the move by 42 per cent to 35 per cent. The proportion of those who “strongly” backed putting safety over choice was more than double the proportion of those who said the opposite (26 per cent to 12 per cent).

Read it all.

As the assisted-dying Bill runs out of debating time in the House of Lords, the Christian Labour peer Lord Rook on Friday tabled three amendments on protecting vulnerable people from coercion and safeguarding young people#HouseofLords #debate https://t.co/2Q3MhOVc5N

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 16, 2026

The Bishops’ Conference said it strongly disagrees with the Government’s position, noting that every organization has guiding values that shape its mission and practice.

“For many faith‑based organizations, including Catholic hospices and care homes, these values are fundamentally incompatible with the introduction of assisted suicide,” said Bishop John Keenan of Paisley, the President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland.

“The Bishops’ Conference maintains that no organization should be compelled by the State to participate in the deliberate ending of life when doing so would violate its ethical or religious principles,” the bishop said.

Anthony Horan, the Director of the Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office, said the Scottish Government and Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) must accept that Catholic hospices and care homes cannot, in good conscience, provide any services under the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, nor can they be expected to refer anyone to such services.

“Assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel,” he told Crux Now.

Read it all.

Ahead of a key vote, the bishops of Scotland, along with pro-life leaders, have made a passionate plea to politicians to reject a proposed assisted suicide bill because it is “unsafe.” https://t.co/Jl3aGGoLhL

— Catholic News Agency (@cnalive) March 6, 2026

Assisted suicide campaigners have repeatedly claimed that just seven Peers have been blocking the Bill by tabling lots of amendments.

A new analysis by Right To Life UK’s Public Affairs team has, however, confirmed that this spin from assisted suicide campaigners paints a deeply misleading picture of the actual situation in the House of Lords.

The analysis shows that nearly 80 Peers have so far tabled or signed amendments highlighting concerns with the Bill and that 131 Peers have either spoken against the Bill or signed amendments raising such concerns during its passage through the Lords.

This is significant because Bill supporters are seemingly attempting to persuade MPs to revive the Bill in the next parliamentary session and force it through using the Parliament Acts, on the basis that a small number of Peers have inappropriately blocked its passage. Our analysis shows this claim to be wholly untrue.

131 is an exceptionally high number of Peers opposing a Bill, particularly one where debates are reserved for Fridays when Peers are often not expected to be in Parliament. It is even more remarkable given that the Bill has not yet completed Committee Stage or reached its Report Stage or Third Reading. In addition to these 131 Peers, it is likely that more Peers will speak out during future sittings and it is known that many more Peers are opposed to the Bill. Others have already spoken out in the media or expressed concerns via written parliamentary questions.

Read it all.

BREAKING: UK Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide Fails After Massive Opposition https://t.co/rSU7BExTq4 pic.twitter.com/XyZHW46dcu

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) February 26, 2026

Campaigners in favour of medically assisted suicide in England, Scotland and France have apparently suffered setbacks that could ensure the controversial practice never comes into law.

A recent report by The Guardian suggested that the Westminster bill, put forward by Labour’s Kim Leadbeater, will likely never come to a final vote and so will fail by default.

Both sides of the debate have accused the other of using underhand tactics to get their way. Proponents of assisted suicide claim the other side has used procedural delaying tactics in the Lords to ensure the bill never becomes law.

Pro-life campaigners have pointed out that the government, which is officially neutral on the issue, has apparently been favouring the pro-suicide position with its actions. It has also been pointed out that extra scrutiny of a bill that would give state institutions the power of life and death merits additional scrutiny and care.

Labour MP Florence Eshalomi told the Guardian, “Not a single royal college, professional body or cabinet minister will attest to the safety of this bill. Scrutiny should never be conflated with obstruction and it would be reckless for Lords to ignore the concerns of such a wide range of experts.”

Read it all.

(Christian Today) 'Campaigners in favour of medically assisted suicide in #England, #Scotland and #France have apparently suffered setbacks that could ensure the controversial practice never comes into law.

A recent report by The Guardian suggested that the Westminster bill, put…

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) January 27, 2026

Its advocates cannot be allowed to act as if the Leadbeater Bill is a done deal

“In extreme cases I would be willing to kill a patient to help them escape unbearable suffering, if they had come to that decision after serious consideration,” says a colleague of mine, in the windowless, unventilated cupboard that serves as a doctors’ office, “But there is no way in hell that the NHS can be trusted with such a role.”

Those who deal with life and death each day recognise that giving patients lethal drugs to end their life is active killing, not passive dying. I happen to think that we should not kill ourselves or others. My colleague takes a different view on the principle. But we don’t shy away from what it is we are actually discussing, so our conversation benefits from a lot more clarity than when politicians emotionalised and euphemised to limp Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill through the Commons.

We discuss the systemic chaos that we see affecting patients every day, and imagine what the effects of introducing a new therapeutic option of being killed would be. US-style privatised medicine has a perverse incentive to keep the patient alive with increasingly extreme and expensive (but ultimately futile) interventions — a quarter of all Americans die in intensive care. 

UK-style socialised medicine has an equal and opposite perverse incentive to reduce the number of patients, especially in times of crisis. And the NHS is broken, as everyone from government to general practice states openly.

Facilitating the suicide of privileged elites who are used to having things their way and see their mode of death as a final opportunity for exercising autonomy is one matter, but if that requires suicide to be offered to all of our patients, including the vulnerable, the lonely, and the abused, the real cost appears to outweigh any idealised benefits. How do we tell a homeless patient with a new metastatic cancer diagnosis that they could wait months for a nursing home placement, or they could be scheduled for an assisted suicide in as little as nine days, without it sounding like a tacit recommendation?

Read it all.

Advocates of assisted dying cannot be allowed to act as if the Leadbeater Bill is a done deal, argues @TradSkowronski https://t.co/YPaIjSA0TL

— The Critic (@TheCriticMag) January 21, 2026

Week two of the assisted suicide Bill Select Committee in the House of Lords showed that when Parliament hears from those most at risk, the Bill’s argument collapses. Disability rights campaigners, human rights experts, and mental health specialists gathered to reveal the dangers, shattering the illusion of effective safeguards.

The week began with evidence from leading palliative clinicians, care providers, and a representative from Age UK. Dr Sam Ahmedzai, a pro-assisted suicide doctor, acknowledged that “there will be mistakes and casualties” if the Bill passes. Even he, an assisted suicide fan, could not hide the reality. People would die who should not.

Baroness Hayter, a stalwart of the pro-camp, unwittingly admitted that it is very hard to safely legislate for introducing assisted suicide. Pro-assisted suicide Justice Minister Sarah Sackman floundered, offering evasions and vague complaints about the current law’s “conundrums” and “real difficulties” but few answers. Sackman’s silent sidekick, Paul Candler, spoke for less than 30 seconds during the 75-minute session.

A senior representative from Mind outlined threats to suicide prevention efforts. Dr Sarah Hughes said that Mind simply cannot support the Bill in its current form. Jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide have seen the law expand quickly, she said, and assessments by video call are utterly insufficient. Cherryl Henry-Leach, Chief Executive at Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, summarised this well by stating, “It will be very difficult to deliver assisted dying safely”.

Paralympic legend and member of the House of Lords Tanni Grey-Thompson delivered one of the committee’s most emotional interventions. She branded the Bill “a danger to disabled people,” explaining through obvious emotion how parents fear how their adult children with Down’s syndrome will be treated if they outlive them. Baroness Grey-Thompson dismantled the Bill’s six-month prognosis safeguard, calling it “arbitrary” and a “best guess,” and warned it would not protect disabled people at all. She told her fellow parliamentarians that no disability organisation supports the Bill.

Read it all.

Those most at risk from this law are clear that assisted suicide is unsafe, writes @fleurmeston https://t.co/fTiDsUwZbL

— The Critic (@TheCriticMag) November 3, 2025

If doctors find it too difficult to assess ‘unbearable suffering’ they referred the person to an ‘end of life’ clinic. If the second doctor did not agree it was referred to a third doctor. This becomes ‘doctor shopping’.

A committee cannot assess if someone’s suffering is ‘unbearable’.

Doctors have to be able to imagine a person’s suffering. But autistic pain is difficult to assess and so doctors have to take the autistic person’s word for it. The suffering of an autistic person is different from that of a non-autistic person.

In quite a few instances there was no physical illness that was terminal. One person found it too difficult to eat more than three meals a day – required because of their condition.

The Dutch ‘openness’ is good and good that there is scrutiny through the reports being made available online.  There was a change in the culture and unspoken pressure to accept this way of dying.  But there is no 6 month limitation and the law may be being expanded too much. The interpretation of the law expanded while the law itself was unchanged,

Disabled people cannot be excluded from the law on account of their disability because that would be discrimination. The disabled have the same rights as everyone.

Read it all.

Bishops decried the proposed legalisation of assisted dying on Friday, as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill came to the House of Lords for the first of two days of debate.

“If passed, this Bill will signal that we are a society that believes that some lives are not worth living,” the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, said. It would become, she said, the “state-endorsed position”.

Bishop Mullally, a former Chief Nursing Officer, questioned whether Parliament had properly listened to the advice of medical experts, including professional bodies which have expressed concerns about the legislation.

The Bill also failed in its “central claim” to give people choice about the manner of their death, she said. “A meaningful choice would see the measures in this Bill set alongside easily available, fully-funded, palliative and social-care services. Without a choice offered, this choice is an illusion.”

Read it all.

"A meaningful choice would see the measures in this Bill set alongside easily available, fully-funded, palliative and social-care services. Without a choice offered, this choice is an illusion.” – @bishopSarahMhttps://t.co/y4bKSThSPJ

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) September 12, 2025

I fully recognize that many, if not most, readers don’t share my view that each embryo — and each unborn child with Down syndrome — is a human life worthy of protection under the law. But I would ask you to put aside thoughts of the law for just a moment and think carefully about the culture we’re creating, from the beginning to the end of life.

What happens when we make a transition from understanding that suffering is an inevitable part of the human condition, one that rallies people to love and care for the people they love (or even to love and care for people they don’t know), to it being somebody’s fault — perhaps it’s the parents who wrongly brought you into this world or your own fault for hanging on too long?

It is understandable and deeply human to want to bring all aspects of our health as much into our control as possible. Terminally ill patients often face horrifying levels of pain. We should try to treat that pain as best we can. Vulnerability is terrifying, but it is also inescapable. In our quest for health and fitness, we are fighting a delaying action. There is no earthly victory over decay and death.

Yet at each stage of life, we can fool ourselves into believing we possess more control than we really do. If we test to control the beginning of life and die by suicide to control the end of life, the negative side of movements like what has come to be known as MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) is to teach you that your health is under your control throughout your life.

Read it all.

What It Really Means to Choose Life https://t.co/1ZKwZLRQ99

— Anders Carlgren (@AndersCarlgren) August 25, 2025

“Successive governments have failed to reduce inequalities in health,” …[the Bishop of London] said.

“These inequalities mean that some people will have up to 20 fewer good years in health than others and certain groups face persistently worse health outcomes than others.

“These inequalities are also pronounced at the end of life, with only one in four people who need end-of-life care being able to access it, and there continues to widespread misunderstanding and distrust of palliative care.

“It is into this context that the Terminally Ill Adults Bill is being proposed. So with only a third of all hospice care being funded by the NHS, the proposals are accompanied by a government commitment to fund in full an assisted suicide service should the bill be passed.

“Rather than funding assisted dying, the Government should be funding palliative care and palliative care research to enable people to live their lives to the full until they die.”

Read it all.

A very thoughtful, moving and well-informed debate led by the Bishop of London at General Synod – and a very important contribution to the wider discussion on assisted dying: https://t.co/7ObjRtLsgS

— Bishop Jonathan Gibbs (@JonathanRGibbs) July 15, 2025

The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, spoke in the House of Lords last week in support of a change to the legal definition of a stillbirth: from a death after 24 weeks into pregnancy to a death after 20 weeks.

Currently, the death of a baby before 24 weeks is considered to be a miscarriage, with implications for entitlement to bereavement leave and maternity protection, as the baby is not legally considered a person (Features, 11 October 2019).

Bishop Watson was speaking on the Lords Bill introduced by Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat). It seeks to lower the threshold for a death to be considered a stillbirth.

“Up to 10,000 families in the UK lose their babies between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy,” Baroness Benjamin said in the debate last Friday.

Read it all.

Losing a baby in pregnancy through #miscarriage or #stillbirth is still a taboo subject worldwide, linked to stigma and shame.
Many women still do not receive appropriate and respectful care when their baby dies during pregnancy or childbirth https://t.co/IbTh4YC8oo pic.twitter.com/x7HQ253ygj

— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) March 13, 2019

Nineteen Bishops are among more than 250 Church of England clergy who have signed a letter condemning a move to decriminalise women who induce their own abortion as “a dangerous change”.

On Tuesday, MPs voted by 379 to 137 in favour of an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill brought by the Labour MP for Gower, Tonia Antoniazzi. This disapplies the existing criminal law relating to abortion from women “acting in relation to her own pregnancy”. The amendment does not change any law regarding the provision of abortion within a healthcare setting.

The letter, published in The Daily Telegraph on Friday, says: “We are troubled by the amendment voted through by the House of Commons on Tuesday to decriminalise terminations in utero up to full term. As many elected politicians move further away from the Christian moral values that have hitherto shaped much that is good in our national life, our concern is that the vulnerable and voiceless are increasingly overlooked.

Read it all (registration or subscription).

Nineteen bishops sign letter; @bishopoffulham and the Bishop of Oswestry also express ‘profound disquiet’https://t.co/0GtctjduOt

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 24, 2025

In an historic vote, MPs have approved a bill which would pave the way for huge social change by giving terminally ill adults in England and Wales the right to end their own lives.

The Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which was backed by 314 votes to 291, will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.

The bill was approved with a majority of 23 MPs, representing a drop from the first time it was debated in November, when it passed by a margin of 55.

The vote came after an emotionally-charged debate which saw MPs recount personal stories of seeing friends and relatives die.

Read it all.

MPs back legalising assisted dying in historic Commons vote

Full story @fayebrownSky ⬇️https://t.co/1ABPztFnPF

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 20, 2025

The letter, published on the website of the think tank Theos on Sunday, is signed by 112 women, who include the Bishops of London, Gloucester, Stepney, Dover, Lancaster, Bristol, Croydon, and Aston. Among the other signatories are the director of Theos, Chine McDonald; the Assistant Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain, Dr Naomi Green; the President of the Catholic Union of Great Britain, Baroness Hollins; and the chief executive of Jewish Women’s Aid, Sam Clifford.

The letter says that the Bill “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”.

It continues: “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.”

Read it all.

Eight bishops have joined more than 100 women of different faiths in signing an open letter that says that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill “could create a new tool to harm vulnerable women” https://t.co/lClQBm12qF pic.twitter.com/5HhlO4ZBlK

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) April 7, 2025

What Ilyich faces in the final moment is grace. He is graced with the realization that he needs to offer care. Knowing that the real is compassion is not his accomplishment but is the gift of his son’s presence. We, who would so quickly assist him out of this life, would do so because we can bear with neither grace nor compassion. They ask too much of us for another. 

Because death is not taken from him by “assistance” that offers no real help, Ilyich is graced with realization that death is no more. “Instead of death there was light.” He sees this light and realizes that “death is over . . . there is no more death.” Ilyich’s realization echoes Revelation 21:4 that “death will be no more.” Only a culture that can see death and care for those who are dying can be a culture open to the One who bore all our burdens. Christ’s dying offers us abundant life even in our deaths if we are willing to face them. In his Good Death, death itself dies. Euthanasia denies us a good death because it is the denial of care, the denial of facing death authentically, and the denial of the goodness of life. It is thus the denial of the Author of Life—or of any possible spiritual breakthrough at all.

Each fall for many more years, my students and I will read a novella about a dying, loveless lawyer from Tsarist Russia. We will ask what the real life is and wonder if we are living it. We will consider what love and care look like and whether we live in a culture in which we bear each other’s burdens. To bear those burdens is to face our deaths together. The direction of our culture is increasingly toward “death pods” where we will die alone, because we, like Ivan, have refused to really live together. Resisting such a culture of solitary and uncared for assisted dying will take legislation, but it will also require that we spend some time with Ilyich and try to recover the goodness of a good life and of a good death. Someday I will face death. Someday my students will face it as well. Will we do so in a world detached from reality or attached to it? A culture that dispatches the burdensome or bears their burdens? A culture that offers care or that offers death? The euthanasia of Ilyich would have made impossible his eu thanatos. Our society’s growing practice of euthanasia may well prove to be the denial not only of our good deaths but also of the only real thing, a good life.

Read it all.

Resisting the march of euthanasia will require numerous approaches. I hope this reflection on the good death of Ivan Ilyich contributes in some small way. https://t.co/wOO6VTKdnF

— Terence Sweeney (@TerenceJSweeney) February 19, 2025

While few modern proponents of doctor-assisted death would argue that sick people should “make way” when their lives become a draw on others’ resources, they don’t appear to believe this—inevitable—outcome should prevent the practice from being legalized. This troubling attitude goes against the U.K.’s historically Christian approach to dying people, including the belief that every person has intrinsic value, and every life ought to be equally cherished and protected.

Every single one of us has been or will be a “burden” on others. When we are young, we depend upon the care and provision of our parents. When we grow ill, or elderly, we require support from our family and friends. This is not a bad thing; to be human is to be dependent. When it comes to helping those with terminal illness, properly resourced palliative care is highly effective at mitigating suffering and ensures that every patient hears a loving message: “It’s good that you’re alive.”

U.K. politicians must ask themselves what kind of society they want to create: One where an individualistic “right to die” sees vulnerable and marginalized Britons confronted with the option of suicide and pressured to pursue it; or a society where suicide is never viewed as a fitting response to suffering, where every citizen is recognized to have intrinsic and equal value, safeguarded from harm, and offered compassionate, life-affirming support.

As the Canadian ethicist Ewan Goligher noted: “A nation’s laws are a teacher.” Legalizing assisted suicide teaches society to doubt human value and to see it as merely extrinsic and conditional. Prohibiting it reflects the true depth of human dignity.

Read it all.

It’s Good That You’re Alive https://t.co/n78pfTOVXG “As the Canadian ethicist Ewan Goligher noted: ‘A nation’s laws are a teacher.’ Legalizing assisted suicide teaches society to doubt human value and to see it as merely extrinsic and conditional”

— David Mulroney (@David_Mulroney) January 17, 2025

Referring to the prevalence of suicide and how “huge efforts” are being made “to try to prevent people feeling despair and feeling that they have no other choice but to take their own lives”, Archbishop Martin said, “I find a profound contradiction between that and the idea of assisting somebody to take their own life at any stage during their life.”

He noted that fears and concerns regarding the introduction of assisted suicide were voiced to some extent during the lead up period to the Westminster vote.

“In Ireland we need a very careful reflection on this.” He expressed disappointment that the Dáil “seemed to be rushing to adopt what we [the Irish bishops] believe was a flawed report of the Oireachtas Committee just before it broke up for the election.”

“It gave me some consolation to see that none of the parties appeared to be making the introduction of assisted dying in Ireland a manifesto issue and therefore I feel that none of the parties have actually a mandate now to proceed on this issue.”

“I really do feel that our concerns about the slippery slope, how this issue invariably gets expanded and increased as time goes on, which we see from other countries, is something we should reflect long and hard about.”

Read it all.

Archbishop ‘very disappointed’ over assisted dying vote https://t.co/2kBwTtpM9A

— Eamon Martin (@ArchbishopEamon) December 23, 2024

A single cell.

A global business worth billions.

A trade that can bring rewards—or human costs that cannot be measured.

The human egg is a precious resource, exchanged in markets open, gray or black. To tell its story, we follow a teenage girl in India, lured into selling her eggs; a model in Argentina whose genetic makeup is prized; a mother in Greece, told by police that her eggs were stolen; and two “egg girls” from Taiwan who have put themselves at risk to earn money in the US.

Read it all.

Women around the world are increasingly part of a very human global supply chain.

In @BW investigation, we learned how they’re paid—and sometimes exploited—in the multibillion-dollar fertility industry. I made this key takeaways free to read:https://t.co/ax7Nco65xc

— Marika Katanuma (@marikakatanuma) December 13, 2024

Christians are not alone in valuing life; many Jews, Muslims, and other people of goodwill also affirm the intrinsic goodness of human life. But there is a distinctly Christian conviction at work here, and it is bedrock to our faith: Every human being, from conception to death, is created by God, loved by him, and stands under his protection. 

The claim that innocent human life is inviolable is not primarily a claim about us humans, then, but about our Creator. To murder (or torture or enslave, as the church father Gregory of Nyssa saw as early as the fourth century) is to trespass without authority, to assert rights where one has none. It is to unsay God’s “very good” spoken over a fellow creature, to reject and despise a man or woman whom the Lord has brought into being and for whom Christ died. Inviolability is the upshot of our creation in the divine image. 

Unlike many topics in theology and ethics, this is not an issue on which the church has ever been ambiguous. There were no early church councils to debate the taking of innocent life. It didn’t take centuries of conflict to adjudicate. On the contrary, Christians were known from the start for their adamant rejection of pagan disrespect for those unwanted by their families or deemed socially useless—the unborn and newborn, disabled and elderly. 

Read it all.

Why do Christians oppose euthanasia?

Brad East’s answer:https://t.co/cviFstiPVB

— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) December 11, 2024

As a supporter of assisted suicide, Lord Sumption’s argument is commendably honest. He recognises that the Leadbeater bill creates a new kind of society. Although it sprinkles us all with the same fairy dust of autonomy, our new-found entitlement does not land on us all equally. Rather, because of pre-existing social inequalities, it creates two distinct groups. In one, we find “strong-minded, articulate individuals.”

They have a high sense of self-worth and good support networks. To them, assisted suicide represents an idealised form of dying on their own terms. It is an empowering possibility for a future dark day, an option (perhaps that such a person will never actually use) rather than an obligation. In the other group, Lord Sumption writes, we find “the genuinely vulnerable”. For many reasons (illness, old age, hard life circumstances) people in this group often feel dictated to by life. They cannot hold prime ministers to personal account, and are not of much interest to the media. In many cases, their support networks are threadbare.

Lord Sumption admits that such people have good reason to fear the Pandora’s Box opened by Leadbeater’s bill. For them, in time, it will be less an empowering hypothetical option for a future day and more a dark cloud that will hang over every day, a silent obligation to be resisted rather than a liberating insurance plan. Although he supports assisted suicide, it is for the sake of the vulnerable that he is unable to “rejoice” in the first wave of an incoming tide.

Read it all (subscription).

Excellent piece!

“When elevated to life’s highest value, autonomy is an uncompromising and rapacious master. Given time, the strength of its logic bursts through our arbitrary restrictions on it.” –@DrJamesEglinton https://t.co/BbAOKmEeWl

— Keith Plummer (@XianMind) December 7, 2024

Bishop Mullally, who is the C of E’s lead bishop for health care and a former Chief Nursing Officer for England, said: “The Church of England believes that the compassionate response at the end of life lies in the provision of high quality palliative care services to all who need them.

“Today’s vote still leaves the question of how this could be implemented in an overstretched and under-funded NHS, social care, and legal system. Safeguarding the most vulnerable must be at the heart of the coming parliamentary process; today’s vote is not the end of the debate.”

The Archbishop of York was reported in the Guardian as saying: “I regret this decision. It changes the relationship between the state and its citizens, between doctors and their patients, and within families between children and their terminally ill relatives. Once begun it will be hard to undo and control.”

Read it all.

Church figures have expressed concern after the first steps towards making assisted dying legal in England and Wales were taken on Friday. https://t.co/O4jCF3HaEI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) December 2, 2024

MPs have backed proposals to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales in a historic vote which paves the way for a change in the law.

In the first Commons vote on the issue in nearly a decade, MPs supported a bill which would allow terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to seek help to end their own life by 330 to 275, a majority of 55.

It followed an emotional debate in the chamber, where MPs from both sides shared personal stories which had informed their decisions.

The bill will now face many more months of debate and scrutiny by MPs and peers, who could choose to amend it, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament required before it becomes law.

Read it all.

MPs back proposals to legalise assisted dying https://t.co/fPRg05cakA

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) November 29, 2024

Some time ago, I found myself sitting at a dinner opposite a Labour peer. We chatted over various things as the evening proceeded. Just before we were getting up to leave a new topic came up. “I am a convinced campaigner for assisted dying,” she said. “As a bishop, I suspect you’re not. Why don’t you think we should do it?” Put on the spot, struggling to know what to say, and knowing I probably had one line to deliver as we stood up to leave, I said something like this: “Life is a gift from God. It’s not up to us to decide when it ends.” She looked across at me with a pitying look and walked away, clearly unconvinced.

I’ve often wondered what I should have said. Lord Falconer suggests that only secular people like him are ‘objective’ and religious people like me or Shabana Mahmood are biased and therefore our views are to be discounted. The idea that his secular perspective is not colouring his views, but that our religious ones are, or that he is not imposing his beliefs on others whereas we are, is of course, as Isabel Hardman has argued, philosophical nonsense.

Our religious beliefs shape our views, as his secular views shape his. The question is which perspective gives us a better, healthier and more coherent way of living together. I spoke recently to a key figure in the Church of England’s response to Assisted Dying who told me in no uncertain terms that religious arguments simply don’t wash in this debate. We have to use pragmatic and political ones that appeal to a wide audience. And so, the main arguments we have heard from church leaders and others against assisted suicide refer to the slippery slope argument: that legislation will inevitably in time become looser to include more candidates; care for the vulnerable, such as the elderly or the disabled who will feel pressurised into taking their own life, or, as the Health Secretary Wes Streeting has argued, the fact that palliative care is not yet robust enough in our health system to enable a proper choice.

Read it all.

My thoughts on why religion matters in the assisted dying debate https://t.co/SJBK4fUI3B

— Graham Tomlin (@gtomlin) November 27, 2024

Don’t turn our doctors into killers, says the Star. Like several of the opposing factions to the bill, it cites Canada as exemplifying the slippery slope, with one in twenty deaths there being by assisted dying.

This argument that the bill will open up unforeseen consequences for the disabled, and indeed for the unfortunate residents of bad care homes, is common, Archbishop Welby, facing down former Archbishop Carey, said that assisted dying was in effect a sword of Damocles over the disabled and aged. We should add that many Canadians choosing state sponsored suicide cite feeling a burden on family and caregivers as their motive. Canada surely vindicates Welby.

This argument really is cogent and necessary, but is it sufficient for a Christian view which sees humanity made in the image and likeness of God, leading to the doctrine of the sanctity of life? As Frost says this a doctrine that has permeated and grounded western civilization. Is it not simply wrong to kill people even those begging to die? Hospices and care giving was the Christian answer, but Christianity is fading fast with its practical altruistic legacy of looking after the sick and dying.

Lord Frost has pointed to our society’s reliance on Judaeo Christian ethics for all its institutions and to the perilous situation of breaking with this tradition of the sanctity of life for a callous utilitarianism. So far his is the deepest theological apologia for the classical Christian ethic of life  on offer, we trust Christian leaders will step up to the challenge soon.

Read it all.

Ask MPs to oppose assisted suicide ✋

Some helpful tips here 👇 https://t.co/wr1LYSQylr

— Better Way (@betterwayUK) October 24, 2024

“It’s very important that we discuss it here in the Senedd today because although the private member’s bill is going forwards in Westminster, if it were passed the implication would be very important in Wales because we have responsibility for health and social care.”

Ms Morgan said it is important to have safeguards to ensure people meet specific criteria, with medical people present when the decision is made….

Carys Moseley, a public policy researcher and analyst for Christian Concern based in Cardiff, said the group was “concerned” about the motion.

She said: “We’ve got a visual display of the actual cases that have been happening in different jurisdictions in the western world.

“These are tragic cases – diabetes being treated as a long-term illness in Oregon, assisted suicide the fifth leading cause of death in Canada – these are very grave issues.”

She said the public question the issue more when they hear about other countries.

“Once you introduce this choice – dying – there is a pressure then which eventually becomes a duty to die,” she said.

“There isn’t such a thing as (going on) ‘your own terms’, because it affects all the doctors that become responsible for killing patients or assisted killing rather than preserving life.

Read it all.

The Welsh Senedd, which has a progressive majority, has overwhelmingly voted down a motion to legalise assisted suicide. The more people learn about assisted suicide the less they like it. pic.twitter.com/fww05M1fLi

— Yuan Yi Zhu (@yuanyi_z) October 23, 2024

The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, wrote on X/Twitter: “By all means let’s have the debate. Consideration should also be given to proper investment in pal­liative and social care. And let’s call it what it is: assisted suicide. It’s a slip­pery slope and an absolute de­­grada­tion of the value of human life.”

The Bill was also condemned by leaders of the Church in Wales, who said in a statement on Tuesday that the Christian faith had always been rooted “in the reality of pain and mortality”, as well as “the incalculable value of each human person, irrespective of social standing, access to resources, or physical or mental ability. . . In that spirit, shown to us in the person of Jesus, we give our heartfelt support to the extension of the best possible palliative care to all who require it, so that no limits are put on the compassion which we show as individuals and as a society.”

“This is an extremely difficult issue over which different people, including Christians, will have arrived at differing views with the best of intentions,” said the statement from the Archbishop of Wales, the Rt Revd Andrew John, with the Bishops of Bardsey, Llandaff, Monmouth, St Davids, St Asaph, and Swansea & Brecon.

Read it all.

Bishops warn of ‘duty’ to die if Leadbeater Bill is carried https://t.co/owjUo4W5Xz

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 16, 2024

… legalising assisted suicide would disproportionately impact many millions of vulnerable people, who might perceive themselves as a burden on those around them and the health service. My concern is that once you can ask for assisted suicide, it soon becomes something that you feel that you ought to do. Permission slips into being duty. This does not represent true choice for all, and I worry that no amount of safeguards will ensure everyone’s safety at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

A good death and compassionate care should be available to everyone, but the Bill being introduced today will not achieve that.”

Read it all.

Not half.

Assisted Dying Legislation is 'Dangerous' says Archbishop Welby – BBC News https://t.co/NhK26S8S9c

— Erica Wooff (@ericauk) October 16, 2024