On eve of UK assisted suicide vote, archbishop defends role of religion in public square

London, England, Nov 28, 2024 / 10:30 am (CNA).

The leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has made a robust defense of the role of religion in the political debate about assisted suicide as members of parliament prepare to vote on the issue tomorrow.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, was asked to respond to remarks by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the former Lord Chancellor, who told The Guardian on Nov. 24, that “religious beliefs” should not be imposed on others, when it comes to the debate on assisted suicide. 

During an interview with Times Radio on Nov. 25, Nichols said: “I thought we lived in a democracy where people were permitted to express their views and to take forward an argument and a rational argument. If Mr. Falconer can’t extend that space to religious belief, then I’m not sure why he should be in politics, actually.”

He continued: “It’s not as if politics is a separate, sealed-off way of living, it’s part of the life of this country. Religious belief is very much part of the life of this country, and the majority of people in the world actually hold a religious belief in God. So, it’s Charlie Falconer, who is in the box, not me.”

The vote on assisted suicide, which is scheduled in the House of Commons tomorrow, is thought to be “on a knife’s edge,” according to voting projections. Recent analysis by Election Maps UK indicates that 285 MPs are in favor of the new law, while 289 MPs are opposed.

When asked by Times Radio how he would feel if assisted suicide was legalized in England and Wales, Nichols replied: “I’d be fearful for many vulnerable people who would feel under pressure. You know the right to die can easily become a duty to die, that eats away [at] a person’s self-confidence.”

Nichols has also added his signature to a letter released on Nov. 24, signed by a number of faith leaders — including Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Coptic Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox leaders — stating “their deep concern” about the impact of the Bill. It reads:

“In the UK, it is estimated that 2.7 million older people have been subjected to abuse; many of these may also be vulnerable to pressure to end their lives prematurely. Disability campaigners and those working with women in abusive relationships have also highlighted the danger of unintended consequences should the law be changed.

“The experience of jurisdictions which have introduced similar legislation, such as Oregon and Canada, demonstrate how tragic these unintended consequences can be.

“Promised safeguards have not always protected the vulnerable and marginalized. Even when surrounded by loving family and friends, people towards the end of their life can still feel like a burden. This is especially the case while adult social care remains underfunded. In this environment, it is easy to see how a ‘right to die’ could all too easily end in feeling you have a duty to die.”

Meanwhile, an increasing number of significant political figures have come out against the Bill, in the run up to the debate.

Former Prime Ministers, Boris Johnson, Teresa May, Liz Truss, and Gordon Brown have all indicated that they are opposed to the Bill, while David Cameron who served as Prime Minister between 2010 and 2016, has changed his mind in favor of assisted dying.

Current prominent members of the government, including the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, have made it clear that they are opposed to a change in the law and will be voting against the Bill.

The highly controversial Bill is sponsored by backbench MP, Kim Leadbeater, and has been allocated five hours of debate tomorrow in the House of Commons.

Following the debate, there will be a vote and if the Bill is ratified it will then progress to the next stage of the legislative process.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, would allow terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less, to apply for physician-assisted suicide.

MPs are allowed a “free vote” on the issue, which means they can vote according to their conscience, rather than following a party line.