Explainer: What Christians need to know about the Assisted Dying Bill

It is a vital week for Kim Leadbeater’s bill to legalise assisted suicide. The committee of MPs tasked with scrutinising her bill have begun looking at the details and voting on the amendments MPs have tabled. It will then return to the house of commons for a third vote.

What is happening?

Several MPs who voted against the bill at second reading have tabled amendments to make it slightly less dangerous and to improve the currently scant protection for vulnerable people. Conversely, there are attempts by MPs who voted for the bill at second reading to make an already bad bill worse by expanding the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide.  

Leadbeater herself has already put forward a number of amendments. The High Court function of determining whether someone should be allowed an assisted suicide - a key safeguard touted by supporters of the bill - has now been dropped due to concerns over the capacity of courts. This may cause significant nervousness among some MPs who only gave the bill qualified support at the second reading on the basis of such safeguards. 

There is a real sense that momentum is increasing in favour of those who oppose this enormous social change

More than 50 witnesses recently provided oral evidence to the bill committee, including medical professionals, lawyers and other important groups. Many raised significant concerns. Even so, there can be little doubt that Leadbeater stacked the witnesses in her favour. All eight of the international witnesses were in favour of the principle of assisted suicide and no voices were heard from Canada or the Benelux countries where assisted suicide/euthanasia is well established - and horror stories well-documented. 

Journalist Dan Hitchens published a list of individuals and organisations that really ought to have been called to give evidence but were excluded. I suspect that many, if not all, were not invited precisely because they would have articulated the grave issues with this bill. While selecting the witnesses was the prerogative of Leadbeater’s handpicked committee, her manner of doing so has, for those of us who are concerned about the bill, rather called into question her assurance that a vote at second reading was a “vote to continue the debate” and that her bill would be subject to “robust debate and scrutiny”. 

Selective transparency

Of particular concern is the fact that last year over 350 disability organisations came out publicly to oppose the bill. Notwithstanding this, not a single representative from any of these organisations was initially invited to give evidence. Equally worryingly, the Royal College of Psychiatrists had apparently also been blacklisted before a media backlash led Leadbeater to relent. 

Whatever one’s views of the bill, we should all agree that the question of whether to legalise assisted suicide is of seismic importance - and needs careful scrutiny rather than a rushed, opaque and partial legislative process. Perhaps the priority has been to avoid awkward and inconvenient questions that might cast doubt on the morality and safety of the bill. 

Just 28 MPs switching their stance to oppose the bill will ensure it is defeated at third reading 

There has been an encouragingly broad coalition of different voices and organisations coming together in opposition. These groups have come from all faiths and none. While Christians have often been at the forefront of opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia, it is disappointing that some have sought to dismiss their views - and those of other faith groups - as irrelevant. Writing off any opposition as merely “religious people seeking to impose their views on others” is an unfair and misleading caricature.

Declare fearlessly

Churches and individual Christians must not be afraid to continue to lobby their MPs, to persuade them of the great dangers that this bill holds, and also to mobilise others to do the same. The dangers to vulnerable people presented by the bill, the change in ethical norms and the patient-doctor relationship that would ensue, ought to be of concern to everyone. The fact that someone has their thinking informed by faith convictions should hardly be a cause for apology or exclusion from the debate, even if it may sometimes be wise to use broader arguments when writing to or meeting with MPs. 

The vote at second reading of Kim Leadbeater’s bill will have come as a disappointment to many of us, but I do believe there is reason for hope. There is a real sense that momentum is increasingly moving in favour of those who oppose this enormous social change. Just 28 MPs switching their stance to oppose the bill will ensure it is defeated at third reading. While we must demonstrate great compassion towards people in often heartbreaking and difficult situations, support not suicide remains the answer. 

Stand with Premier against the latest legislation. To sign the petition and email your MP visit premier.org.uk/forlife