Tag: assisted dying

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of Newcastle supports further scrutiny of bill

The Bishop of Newcastle spoke at the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 12th September 2025, touching on her experience of the assisted dying debate in New Zealand and flaws in this legislation:

The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, this is not the first country in which I have lived and worked during such a debate as this. I was a Bishop in New Zealand ahead of the referendum on a similar Bill there five years ago. I witnessed the arguments, heard the reassurances and have since followed its implementation, including the pressures on healthcare professionals and the unforeseen consequences from a lack of clarity around process.

Only recently, New Zealand published its five-year review of the Act, highlighting significant practical challenges, concluding that the review committee is ineffective as an oversight body and recommending reforms. Five years on from the passing of a Bill much like the one before us, it would be irresponsible not to take its findings seriously. Most strikingly, the report highlights confused principles for the service and even recommends that the New Zealand Government establish specific principles to underpin the Act. This is no small matter—to be five years into providing the service without clarity on the principles on which it was built. For legislation where the consequences of poor drafting are so high, it is alarming that such principles were not defined from the outset. Yet, almost a year into the passage of this Private Member’s Bill, we are still discussing core concepts, without sufficient detail on how a state-sponsored suicide service would be implemented. That should trouble us all.

Continue reading “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of Newcastle supports further scrutiny of bill”

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of Southwark raises concerns on effects of bill on vulnerable members of society

The Bishop of Southwark spoke at the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 12th September 2025, expressing concern regarding the effects of the bill on vulnerable members of society, and the sanctity of human life:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I acknowledge with deep respect that those arguing for the passage of this Bill are often speaking from personal experience of the pain and suffering of someone’s final illness. Yet, along with many other speakers, I have deep concerns about legislating to permit the practice of assisted dying. I caution the House against the remedy of choice in this area. My concern is that those who are most vulnerable in society will become more vulnerable should this Bill find its way on to the statute book.

Related to this, and as a Bishop, I wish to say something on the subject of life, which I believe we must consider in any Bill making provisions for its termination. In the Old Testament, the principal word for life is the Hebrew word “hayim”, a plural noun. This expression signifies both our physical life and our source in God, who is the source of all life. It is a relational term, and, like most societies until our own age, it reflects a view of life as a gift and one lived out with others. It is a sign of the deep richness of the journey of life, which, of course, encompasses mortality and the finality that takes us to our very last breath. We need to be immensely careful in supporting a departure from the practice and wisdom of centuries.

Continue reading “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of Southwark raises concerns on effects of bill on vulnerable members of society”

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of London opposes legislation and calls for comprehensive funding of palliative care system

The Bishop of London spoke at the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, opposing the bill and outlining the need for fully funded palliative and social care services in the UK:

The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has already pointed out, we in this Chamber share the same goal: for people to die with dignity and compassion. They are critical concerns for those who, like me, believe that the Bill is deeply flawed. Noble Lords will know that I am a former government Chief Nursing Officer, and I chaired the UK Commission on Bereavement. As a nurse, a priest, a daughter and a granddaughter, I have had the privilege to be with many people as they die. Most people die well although, as we have heard and will continue to hear, that is not always the case. I have known people to experience some of the most valuable days of their life as it comes to an end, including those with terminal illnesses.

Continue reading “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bishop of London opposes legislation and calls for comprehensive funding of palliative care system”

Bishop of London asks about Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

The Bishop of London received the following written answer on 16th January 2025:

The Lord Bishop of London asked His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to produce an equalities impact assessment ahead of the coming stages of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Continue reading “Bishop of London asks about Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill”

Church Commissioners Questions: Church-owned Hospices, Historic Places of Worship, Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, People Housebound due to Disability: Church Support, Historic Church Preservation: Northumberland, Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza

On 28th November 2024, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Marsha De Cordova MP, gave the following answers to questions from MPs in the House of Commons:

Continue reading “Church Commissioners Questions: Church-owned Hospices, Historic Places of Worship, Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, People Housebound due to Disability: Church Support, Historic Church Preservation: Northumberland, Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza”

Health and Care Bill: Bishop of Carlisle raises concerns on assisted dying

On 26th January 2022, the House of Lords debated the Health and Care Bill in committee. The Bishop of Carlisle spoke on issues of assisted dying contained in amendments to the bill:

The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, I recognise and respect the integrity and passion that underlie Amendment 297. However, I rise to agree wholeheartedly and briefly with those noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have already expressed their significant reservations about it.

There are two problems in particular with that amendment. The first has to do with the many contentious arguments for and against any legislation permitting assisted dying, some of which have already been mentioned. Tempting though it is to rehearse some more of those, I am conscious not only of the time but of the fact that they have already been presented recently and at length, as we have been reminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, at Second Reading of the Assisted Dying Bill here in your Lordships’ House. The ongoing process of that Bill, however slow it may be, should not be undermined. We have also been assured that this is not primarily what Amendment 297 is all about. I might add that the terminology of that amendment is unhelpfully vague. “Vague” is a word that has already been used more than once in the debate today. For instance, we might ask exactly what is meant by “terminally ill” or “medical assistance”.

Continue reading “Health and Care Bill: Bishop of Carlisle raises concerns on assisted dying”

Bishop of Chichester warns of unintended consequences of assisted suicide bill

On October 22nd 2021 Peers debated the Assisted Dying Bill of Baroness Meacher, at its Second Reading.

The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, I feel constrained to begin with a theological view, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, challenged us to do. It is simply this: in the Christian view, God does not inflict evil on people. Indeed, the man God, Jesus Christ himself, sharing our life, experienced the evil and suffering of the cross in order that we, in the darkest moments of death, might find hope and the recovery of life in heaven. I believe that, in this debate, we have been treading on sacred ground as we have listened to personal stories, and we have done so with reverence.

Most of all, I want to speak about the wider context of vulnerability and to do so from the experience of the parishes where I have served; for example, the sex workers in the back streets of Plymouth, the largely black and Asian communities in Leicester, and the bedsits and overcrowded flats of Hastings, home to people with severe mental health issues and/or drug dependency. At the point of facing terminal illness, such people would reveal overwhelmingly that they have no family, and few friends or responsible partners to assist them through reaching the point of final death. Indeed, in many cases, they have had no experience of being given autonomy or power over their lives; at the end of their lives, they are woefully ill prepared for taking responsibility for their death.

The sanctity of life is central to Christian faith. It is also a view held with honour and conviction by people of other faiths, as we have heard. The Church’s sense of responsibility for all people stems from this conviction—responsibility especially for the vulnerable when they face death too often alone, but, at the moment, with the fundamental bulwark of protection in the law. This was a point made powerfully by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and, more recently, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert.

Many contributors have raised significant doubts about the level of trust in the capacity of the judiciary and the medical profession to meet the extraordinary demands of disadvantaged communities when terminal illness and incapacity face them. The call from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and others for urgent and sustained investment in palliative care would be a positive and worthy outcome to this important debate on a Bill whose humane intentions I respect profoundly but which, I believe, would lead to unintended consequences and which we should not let pass.

Hansard

Bishop of Carlisle – need to improve palliative care, not legalise assisted suicide

On October 22nd 2021 Peers debated the Assisted Dying Bill of Baroness Meacher, at its Second Reading.

The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, on such an excellent speech

My colleagues on these Benches have already expressed our profound opposition to any change in the law on assisted dying so I will not repeat the cogent points that they have already made. I hope it will be apparent that our position is not only theological but rooted in our pastoral experience and that of many chaplains in hospitals and hospices and clergy across the land, with arguments that, as this debate has effectively revealed, are important to a wide variety of people, whatever their beliefs.

I remember, when we last debated this issue in your Lordships’ House, being asked in a radio interview, “What’s new in this debate?” In terms of arguments rather than opinions, I am not at all sure that much was new then, and even less is new now. So in the brief time allocated to me today, I will simply reiterate two issues that have been raised several times but which seem of particular significance in this powerful, respectful and very moving discussion, in which we know that compassion motivates every one of us.

Continue reading “Bishop of Carlisle – need to improve palliative care, not legalise assisted suicide”

Assisted Dying Bill would make vulnerable less safe – Bishop of Durham

On October 22nd 2021 Peers debated the Assisted Dying Bill of Baroness Meacher, at its Second Reading.

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I begin by noting the simple courtesy that has been expressed so far during the debate today. We know that humanity at its best always wants the best for the people we love, and we act to protect them where we can. It is natural to want to ease hardships and burdens for our loved ones, especially in a time of pain, but also in a time of rising care costs and stretched health services. But human beings do not always act in the best way. We are flawed creatures.

There is a very real danger that individuals will feel that they have become a burden and thus think that the dutiful option to their families is to end their life. In Oregon and Canada, where assisted dying has been legalised, fear of being a burden to family actually frequently accompanies the requests. The scope for abuse and pressure for people to end their lives is significant. It is not a giant leap but a small step. The practice of weighing the value of lives against emotional and financial cost simply is dehumanising.

The consequences of the Bill to the most vulnerable have to be deeply considered. If the value of people’s lives is called into question, it is likely that those who have been historically undervalued and overlooked will be again. Those with disabilities and mental health issues, and other minorities, are already vulnerable, and the difference of experience between those groups and others has again been evident during the pandemic. The Bill acts on the principle that people should have the ability to act upon their will to end their lives, but we have seen instances over the pandemic, as reported by the Care Quality Commission, of “do not attempt CPR” decisions that have been made either without or against the will of the vulnerable. Perhaps even more troubling was the aspect of the report by the CQC, which said that those decisions

“were being applied to groups of people”.

In a stretched and overwhelmed health service that has supported us over a long pandemic, safeguards against oversight cannot be guaranteed. What would have been the outcome of the pandemic if the medical stakes had been higher?

We must not overlook the cultural implications of passing a Bill that leads anyone to measure the worth of someone else’s life. Who are we to put a value on human life or determine that, in some instances, the person is not worth the cost? Let us not abandon the imperative principle that is innate to us of valuing every human life and protecting and caring for the vulnerable.

If I may, I have a reminder for the noble Lord, Lord Vinson:

“But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs”—

and then his side was pierced.

Hansard

Archbishop of Canterbury opposes Bill on assisted suicide

On October 22nd 2021 Peers debated the Assisted Dying Bill of Baroness Meacher, at its Second Reading.

The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and listened with great attention to her extremely powerful speech. This is an issue on which many of us have personal experiences, often painful and difficult. There is unanimity on these Benches that our current law does not need to be changed, but I know that people of faith hold differing views. No doubt we will hear those today and I look forward to them.

Everyone here shares the best of intentions. We should recognise that in how we listen and respond to each other. I hope no one will seek to divide the House today, but I welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, because it draws our focus towards our use of language. We need clarity and precision in our terms.

Christ calls his followers to compassion, but compassion must not be drawn too narrowly—a point made indirectly and powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. It must extend beyond those who want the law to provide help to end their lives to the whole of society, especially those who might be put at risk. Our choices affect other people. The common good demands that our choices, rights and freedoms must be balanced with those of others, especially those who may not be so easily heard.

Continue reading “Archbishop of Canterbury opposes Bill on assisted suicide”