Photo: Wikipedia Commons: House of Lords chamber, Palace of Westminster, London
With the House of Commons having narrowly backed assisted suicide in June, the campaign to preserve society’s commitment to life now shifts to the House of Lords. SPUC has promptly responded, calling on supporters to write to peers ahead of the upcoming debate on the proposed Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. SPUC urges that every life, even those at the threshold of death, deserves respect and protection.
The Bill, introduced by Kim Leadbeater MP, seeks to legalise medically assisted suicide for terminally ill, mentally competent adults expected to die within six months. It includes safeguards such as dual doctor assessments and waiting periods. Yet, it is clear that such safeguards fail to fully shield vulnerable individuals from subtle, systemic pressures.
One key concern is the “message” such a law sends: that the lives of the sick, disabled, or elderly are somehow less worth preserving. SPUC warn that legalising assisted suicide risks normalising early death as a solution to suffering and being a burden. This echoes broader ethical worries that even well-intentioned laws may unintentionally erode society’s commitment to caring, not ending, lives.
Legal and medical experts have also raised red flags. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, while neutral in principle, opposes the current bill’s form. They highlight gaps, insufficient safeguards around mental health, superficially defined roles for psychiatrists, and insufficient support for treatable depression that may influence end-of-life decisions. These professional hesitations align with SPUC’s concern that legalising assisted suicide may pre-empt investment in palliative care and mental health support.
Moreover, prominent legal voices, including former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, warn the Bill could conflict with the UK’s duty under the European Convention on Human Rights. He argues it lacks adequate protections against coercion and positions assisted dying as a quasi-state service, raising serious human rights and rule-of-law implications.
The right response to suffering is not to facilitate death, but to foster life through compassionate care, robust palliative services, and mental health support. W must stand for a society where the terminally ill are uplifted, not removed; where our laws affirm that every life, no matter how frail, is precious and worthy of dignity.
As the Lords prepare to deliberate, SPUC’s message is clear: our lawmakers must choose care, not killing, and uphold the timeless value of human life.
