Table of Contents
Dear Member of Parliament,
I am writing to you on behalf of Carryduff Free Presbyterian Church regarding the proposed law to legalize assisted dying for terminally ill adults in England and Wales.
As part of the Christian community within the framework of a larger denomination, I would like to set forth valid reasons why you should vote against any such legislation being introduced, and urge you to follow your conscience on this very important, and highly emotive, moral issue.
This Bill violates the principle of the Sixth commandment, “Thou shall not Kill”
The Larger Westminster Catechism states the following:
“The duties required in the Sixth Commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, tend to the unjust taking away the life of any……”.
“The sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life,…..”
Advocates of this bill are deliberately using euphemisms like ‘assisted dying’ or ‘medical assistance in dying’. Assisted dying means an ‘assisted suicide’. It is assisting another person to kill themselves, with the dying person taking the decisive act. Euthanasia is the intentional killing of another person whose life is felt not to be worth living. While it is true that assisted suicide and euthanasia are different actions, they are both equally wrong. In both cases the intention is to cause the person’s death, in the belief that their life is not worth living, rather than care for them as they need.
If those who would take their own lives, (being urged on by others usually for profit) only knew what lay after death, they would not for one moment act to take their own lives. The Holy Scriptures teach that, …. it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the Judgement……”, Hebrews 9:27.
For a government to contemplate legalising such a wickedness within our society is but further evidence of the depths of the nation’s apostasy from God that is ever increasing around us.
This Bill Denies the Sanctity of Human Life
Assisted suicide denies the value of human-life made in the image of God. It pressures vulnerable people into ending their lives prematurely for fear of becoming a burden. The choice to die very quickly becomes a duty to die. This is the opposite of compassion. True compassion for those who are terminally ill means valuing their lives, giving them hope and supporting high quality palliative care for all who need it. Every human life has intrinsic value. This is not based on perceptions of someone’s autonomy, contribution, or capacity. It is based on the fact that we are all made in the image of God. This is just as true of those who require a lot of medical care because of old age or illness. But introducing assisted suicide will inevitably affect how, for example, elderly and disabled people view their own worth, and how they are viewed by others. It would plant the idea in the minds of some of the most vulnerable in our society that they are worth less than others. Abandoning the principle that all lives are of equal value will have far-reaching consequences. The law must not affirm the idea that some lives are not worth living.
This Bill would be a Disaster for Medical Ethics in Britain
I agree with Dr Liz Evans, UKMFA CEO, that assisted dying would be a disaster for Britain. The good doctor writes that, …..
“…These bills pose a very serious threat not only to the sanctity and dignity of every human life but also to medical ethics – abolishing the requirement that doctors “First do no harm”. They would bring about a fundamental change in the relationship between the state and the individual, and between a doctor and his or her patient; the crossing of an ethical Rubicon which would be very difficult to reverse…..”
“The state exists to protect the lives of its citizens, not to facilitate the ending of their lives. No longer could an individual assume that the state or their doctor will act in his or her best interests. Instead, death would be recognised as a legitimate treatment for suffering.”
“There is also a significant risk that active euthanasia (killing by a doctor’s hand) would be legalised in the medium-term”and become the norm in society.”
“Doctor-assisted dying denies the intrinsic value of human life”. Up to now, Western medicine has stuck to the principle that all lives are of equal value – whether you are young and in your prime, or elderly, infirm or dying. If we say that the lives of those who are terminally ill have less value and can be terminated, this will affect how the whole of society views them. It is dehumanising and will dehumanise us all – cheapening life and normalising killing….’’
This Bill Undermines those Providing Palliative Care
Providing palliative care for those with advanced, incurable, life-limiting illnesses, making the natural end of life as comfortable as possible, is already an existing law that protects people in their most emotional and mentally vulnerable state. What they need is a clear, firm law to protect them in their darkest moments. Instead, supporters of this bill want doctors and others to help people kill themselves. It is the ultimate in hopelessness.
If we see someone contemplating jumping to their death off a bridge, or in front of a train, we do not offer them a push.
This Bill Places a Terrible Burden to Die on the Elderly within Society
Serious concerns about this proposed bill has been raised by disabled rights groups, the medical profession, a number of charities and religious leaders alike that legalising assisted suicide would pressurise the sick, elderly, and vulnerable into ending their lives, for fear of being a burden.
It is deeply concerning that MPs and the wider public are only seeing this Bill barely two and a half weeks before it goes to a vote. For evidence, many pointed to the incremental extension of the practice in Europe, and the absence of real genuine safeguards. Changing the law would put pressure on the elderly and terminally ill to end their lives. Liz Carr, disabled actress and Not Dead Yet campaigner, has publicly stated that:
“For many disabled people the assumption that we’d be ‘better off dead’ is something that we get used to hearing. We do not believe that any safeguard can adequately protect us from coercion, abuse, mistake and discrimination.”
This Bill is Without Guaranteed Safeguards
Supporters of this bill insist that safeguards will be built in. For example, that the person must be over 18, have a terminal illness that means they are likely to die within six months, and have a “voluntary, clear, settled and informed” wish to end their life. But this is just a tactic to crack the law open. No such safeguards exist nor ever work in reality.
A study of over 100,000 terminally ill patients showed only 32% accuracy in predicting the patient was in their final 6 months. A third of those patients were still alive over a year later.
https://bmcpalliatcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12904-023-01155-y
Once the principle of assisted suicide is accepted, eligibility criteria get wider and wider, as we have seen in other countries. Evidence from other countries shows us that once a society starts down this path, the ‘safeguards’ always disappear. Rushing through changes to our laws for such a fundamental issue that could change people’s basic human rights, is totally unjustifiable and fundamentally undemocratic to try and rush it through without proper public scrutiny.
Just five years after legalising euthanasia in 2016, Canada scrapped the requirement for a person to be terminally ill. A court determined that this restriction was ‘incompatible’ with Canadian human rights and equality laws.
That this happened so quickly after the original legislation shows how soon ‘safeguards’ can be eroded once the principle is abandoned. According to leaked documents, there have been 428 possible criminal violations of euthanasia procedures in Ontario, Canada, which were not reported to the police. Dirk Huyer, head of Ontario’s Chief Coroner’s office which is responsible for flagging violations, identified 428 compliance problems over five years with 178 in 2023 alone. That is an average of one every other day. Below is the list of grounds for conducting assisted suicides.
- Army veterans with PTSD being offered ‘Medical Assistance In Dying’ (MAID)
- Patients citing poverty or housing uncertainty as their main reason for seeking to end their lives through ‘MAID’
- Numbers spiralling out of control: in 2016 when ‘MAID’ was introduced, there were just over 1,000 cases but by 2022 this escalated to 13,241 deaths, accounting for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada.
- Canada is now on the verge of introducing euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with mental health conditions, with this change in the law coming into effect in 2027.
- The only health condition listed on 61-year- old Alan Nichols’ application for MAID was hearing loss. His family argued that the hospital improperly helped him make the request as he was not suffering and lacked the capacity to understand the process.
- Michael Fraser was approved for MAID despite not being deemed close to death. One of the doctors who approved him admitted that “the fact that [Michael] had trouble paying his rent” was one of the reasons he had asked to die.
- Amir Farsoud suffers with debilitating back pain, depression and anxiety. When the house he rented was put up for sale and he could not afford anywhere else, a doctor approved him for MAID.
- The rising cost of living means that some people accessing food banks are asking how to apply for MAID.
Around half of those in the US state of Oregon who have died by assisted suicide cited that it was the fear of being a financial, emotional, or care burden on others, as a reason for ending their lives.
This Bill is Deliberately being rushed through Parliament
When MPs last voted on the issue, MPs and the public were given almost two months to scrutinise the Bill before it was voted on. Similarly, earlier this year Lord Falconer introduced an assisted suicide Bill in the House of Lords and gave almost four months for scrutiny of the Bill before Second Reading was scheduled to take place. The haste of some MPs to push and rush this bill through is totally unjustifiable and fundamentally undemocratic and without proper public scrutiny.
Serious questions are also emerging over the funding of Kim Leadbeater, sponsor of this iniquitous bill, and chair of More In Common UK and her links to the Hewlett Foundation who advocate population reduction.
For these reasons, and others that are not mentioned, I ask that you vote against the government on this issue.
