Campaigns against assisted dying that claim to be led by healthcare workers and disabled people are being secretly coordinated and paid for by conservative Christian pressure groups, an Observer investigation has found.
The “grassroots” campaigns have been central to the debate on legalising assisted dying in England and Wales before a landmark vote by MPs this month.
The groups have held protests, given evidence to parliamentary inquiries, appeared in media interviews and orchestrated leaflet campaigns targeting MPs.
But while they are styled to look like separate movements set up by members of the public, they in fact have concealed ties to religious lobbyists.
One campaign, Our Duty of Care, is described as a grassroots group of “UK healthcare workers who oppose the intentional killing of patients by assisted suicide or euthanasia”.
It has been quoted in more than 60 news articles, usually being referred to as a “doctor campaign group”, and its website features pictures of medics wearing scrubs.
Last week, it organised an open letter to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, on behalf of healthcare professionals that said: “We will never take our patients’ lives – even at their request.”
The group’s website and media coverage includes no mention of Christianity, or any religious motivation for opposing the proposal to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
But analysis of financial records shows Our Duty of Care has close ties to religious lobby groups.
It shares an office address and spokesperson with the Christian Medical Fellowship, an evangelical organisation with an anti-abortion stance, and receives funding from the religious lobby group Care (Christian Action, Research and Education), which is known for its opposition to abortion, sex education, gay marriage and broader LGBTQ+ rights.
In emails to its supporters, Care has explained that it is opposed to assisted dying because it goes against God’s word. “Throughout history, the church has strongly opposed assisted suicide and euthanasia. God’s word teaches us that human beings, made in God’s image, are to be protected and cherished,” it said.
According to its latest accounts, Care provided grants of an unspecified value to Care Not Killing, which “finances and operates” the Our Duty of Care campaign.
A spokesperson for Care Not Killing said it was a “secular organisation supported by people of all faiths and none” but declined to answer detailed questions about its financial backers.
Its chief executive, Gordon Macdonald, and its board chair, Nola Leach, both formerly worked for Care – the latter as chief executive.
Another campaign, Better Way, describes itself as a “non-political, not-for-profit campaign supported by experts in several fields”. Its website features the stories of people with lived experience of terminal illness who oppose a change in the law and who Better Way says have been overlooked.
Again, there is no mention of religious reasons for opposing assisted dying and it is not clear from the website who funds the campaign. But the campaign was co-founded by a press officer at Care. The charity is not mentioned anywhere on the website except in the privacy policy, where it is listed as the legal entity responsible for data handling.
A third campaign group, which says it represents hundreds of disabled people, has held joint protests with a prominent evangelical organisation that says assisted dying is a “dark anti-gospel” that is “rooted in … rebellion against God”.
The group, which also accepted money from Care, makes no mention of the links on its website.
The cases raise questions about the vested interests of groups shaping the debate on assisted dying before a key vote by MPs on 29 November.
Steven Kettell, a reader in politics at Warwick University, said there were “many legitimate reasons why people might oppose” reforms and that there was “nothing wrong with religious groups taking part in public debates”.
But he said the “concealed” involvement of interest groups raised questions about transparency and accountability. “Where it gets slightly tricky is when you’re not giving people full disclosure,” he added. “If groups are trying to influence public policy decisions, and these public policy decisions affect the lives of people in this country, clearly we need to know what their real motives are.”
Amy McKay, an associate professor of political science at Exeter University, said the “grassroots” campaigns appeared to be a clear example of astroturfing – the practice of disguising an orchestrated campaign as a spontaneous outpouring of public opinion. “They’re giving this false impression that they are someone they’re not,” she said. She said using doctors to front a campaign motivated by religious interests was a “common tactic” that gave it added legitimacy.
The effect was one of “manufacturing” the impression that more people were opposed to reform than is the case in reality, she said. “It makes it seem like the issue is much more closely divided than I think it really is.”
Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, which is campaigning in favour of legalising assisted dying, said MPs due to vote on the issue needed to know “the honest motivations” of the groups trying to influence them. “It’s worrying that the concealed agendas of some others may mislead MPs and undermine the deliberative democratic process,” he said.
Care described concerns about its campaigning methods as “bad faith attacks” by “some proponents of assisted suicide”, which it said were “a harmful distraction”. Kevin Yuill, a spokesperson for Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, which is part of the Care Not Killing alliance, said: “It is disappointing that, rather than engaging with our serious concerns around changing the law, some people are attempting to target their opponents based solely on an individuals beliefs and protected characteristics.” Before the vote on assisted dying, there has been strong campaigning on both sides, with those in favour of legalising it arguing that it will give terminally ill people control at the end of their lives, alleviating unnecessary suffering. Those opposed are concerned it could put pressure on people to end their lives and have called for improvements to palliative care instead.
If adopted, the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill would make it legal for over-18s in England and Wales who have mental capacity and are expected to die within six months to be assisted to end their life. They would first have to be assessed by two independent doctors and have the decision signed off by a high court judge. A separate bill is under discussion in Scotland.
One of the biggest polls on assisted dying, conducted by Opinium for the campaign group Dignity in Dying, suggests there is widespread support for reform, with 75% of the 10,000 UK adults who were surveyed saying they would support legalising assisted dying, including 69% of Christians and 78% of respondents with disabilities. Another campaign that has been vocal in its opposition to reform, Not Dead Yet (NDY), is also facing questions about its affiliations to religious groups.
There is no suggestion the group, set up in 2002, is not genuine: founding member Jane Campbell, a longtime campaigner on disability equality, said it had “hundreds of members … with direct experience of disability and progressive long-term health conditions”.
But the Observer’s analysis suggests it has not been transparent about its links to the religious right. In May, it held a protest outside parliament where attendees held signs with slogans including: “Don’t prescribe suicide” and “Disabled people say no”, which was jointly organised with Christian Concern, a prominent evangelical organisation opposed to abortion and gay marriage as well as assisted dying.
Until April 2024, Not Dead Yet also accepted funding from Care for a parliamentary researcher to work for two days a week in the office of Lady Campbell.
Not Dead Yet’s website does not mention its link to Christian interest groups, or its funders. Leaflets sent to MPs by the group urging them to “ditch the death bill” also do not mention the links, simply referring to NDY as a “network of disabled people”.
Campbell said Not Dead Yet was a “secular” movement that had stopped receiving funding from Care earlier this year. She did not comment on links with Christian Concern, or respond to questions about the group’s financial backers..
She said the group’s aim was to amplify the voices of “people with lived experience of disability who oppose medically assisted suicide”.
“Like many campaigning groups, Not Dead Yet forms alliances … That does not mean we endorse any partner’s view on other social issues,” she said.
Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern, said the group was “fully supportive of the aims of Not Dead Yet” but had not given it funding. “We share their concerns that legalising assisted suicide will put pressure on vulnerable disabled people and further serve to dehumanise them,” she said.
