Sonia Sodha makes an excellent point about the assisted dying bill in saying, “I’m not sure we can prevent people choosing assisted suicide because they feel they are a burden or would rather pass money on to their kids than spend it on care.” (The assisted dying debate: Charles Falconer and the Observer’s Sonia Sodha tackle the issues, Focus) We couldn’t, and that deserves more attention.
Huge numbers of Britons would die voluntarily, refusing to be a trouble to others and to burden the state, if assisted dying became legal. We live in a society acutely aware of the pressures faced by the NHS, and the sense of being a burden would be felt the most keenly by the most helpless. If the assisted dying bill were to pass, they would know that all they had to do to end the feeling of guilt would be to die. The only sufficient safeguard for the vast majority of us is the law as it stands. It also motivates us to ask for better palliative solutions – and motivates the medical community to seek them.
Marina Bowder
Steventon, Abingdon, Oxfordshire
As leaders of faith communities we wish to express our concern at the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, which will be debated by MPs on 29 November. We are aware of how complex and weighty this topic is. There are many dimensions to the bill, all of them of great ethical and practical importance. We hold in prayer all those across our country who may be personally affected, and our representatives in parliament with profound decisions before them.
Part of the role of faith leaders in communities is to provide spiritual and pastoral care for the sick and for the dying. We hold the hands of loved ones in their final days, we pray with families both before and after death. It is to this vocation that we have been called, and it is from this vocation that we write.
Our pastoral roles make us deeply concerned about the impact the bill would have on the most vulnerable, opening up the possibility of life-threatening abuse and coercion. This is a concern we know is shared by many people, with and without faith.
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 that 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 marginalised.
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.
We are convinced that the current law provides much greater security for those who are vulnerable than the bill before parliament. A bill which MPs will have had only three weeks to scrutinise before they vote on it. The most effective safeguard against life-threatening coercion or abuse is to keep the law as it is.
In supporting the state of the current law, we do not deny that some people experience a painful death, though we welcome the fact that these deaths are far less common than they used to be due to advances in palliative care.
Over decades, we have witnessed how compassionate care, along with the natural processes of dying, allow those at the end of their life to experience important moments. We have seen relationships repair and families reconcile. We have seen lives end in love. Much can be lost by cutting these processes short.
We believe that a truly compassionate response to the end of life lies in the provision of high-quality palliative care services to all who need them. While there are many examples of excellent palliative care in this country, it remains worryingly underfunded. Investment in palliative care is the policy of a truly compassionate nation. It is the way to ensure that everyone in society, including the most vulnerable, receive the care they deserve at the end of life.
Dame Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London, Church of England lead bishop on health and social care, and former Chief Nursing Officer; Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster; Sir Ephraim Mirvis, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth; Sayed Abdul Saheb Al-Khoei, Secretary General of Al-Khoei Foundation; Angaelos, Archbishop of London, Coptic Orthodox Church; Qari Asim, Imam and Chair of MINAB (Mosques and Imams Advisory Board); Glyn Barrett, National Leader of Assemblies of God; Anil Bhanot, Managing Trustee of the Hindu Council UK; Gavin Calver, CEO of Evangelical Alliance; Helen Cameron, President of the Methodist Conference and Moderator of the Free Churches Group; Malcolm Deboo, President, Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe; Joseph Dweck, Senior Rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Sephardi Community; Pinchas Hackenbroch, Chair of the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue; Ross Hendry, CEO of CARE (Christian Action, Research and Education); Trevor Howard, Executive Vice-Chair of the Board, Churches in Communities International; Andrew John, Archbishop of the Church in Wales; Nikitas Lulias, Archbishop of Great Britain, Greek Orthodox Church; Paul Main and Jenine Main, Territorial Leaders of The Salvation Army in the United Kingdom and Ireland; Patrick McKinney, Bishop of Nottingham, Roman Catholic Church; Zara Mohammed, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain; Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, Spiritual Leader and Chair, Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha; Trupti Patel, President of the Hindu Forum of Britain; Mark Pugh, General Superintendent of Elim Pentecostal Churches; Mehool Sanghrajka, Chair of the Institute of Jainology; Bogoda Seelawimala, President of Sri Lankan Sangha Sabha of Great Britain; Lord Singh of Wimbledon, Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations UK; Jonathan Wittenberg, Senior Rabbi of Masorti Judaism; Mar Awraham Youkhanis, Bishop of London, Assyrian Church of the East.
The worry that assisted dying legalisation might allow people to be “coerced, pressured or nudged into killing themselves” is misplaced.
Legalisation makes this less likely because it brings openness and requires two doctors and a judge to be sure that the terminally ill patient genuinely wants to die a few months early. Contrast that with the current situation where any assisted dying has to be given in secret with no professional approval or oversight. Generally, people giving assistance are not prosecuted, so the current law does not stop assisted dying from happening, it just prevents safeguards from being in place.
Richard Mountford
Hildenborough, Kent
We write in support of the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill 2024. Our current law does not serve to safeguard the sanctity of life. By criminalising assisted suicide, it can cause people to end their lives before they require help to do so. Our law does not protect weak and vulnerable people: it requires people to take decisions about their end of life out of sight, alone and without the help of professionals. It encourages dangerous and traumatic attempts at suicide and denies many people dignity and autonomy in how they live out their final months of life.
The bill will protect the vulnerable and the sanctity of life much more effectively than our current law. It will allow terminally ill people in the last six months of their life to make free, informed and settled decisions about their end of life through a robust process involving two doctors and a judge. The bill will strengthen the role of the criminal law: assisting suicide will remain an offence other than where assistance is offered through the new formal process. New offences will also be created. There is no reason to suppose litigation will broaden the ambit of the bill: every decision of the European court of human rights and of our domestic courts has said that this is an area which is a matter for parliament in which courts will not interfere.
It is time for the sake of the vulnerable, for the sake of safeguarding the primacy of human life, and for the sake of constitutional good order that the law is reformed, and that decisions about end of life are brought out of the shadows.
Alex Goodman KC; Lord Falconer PC KC; Lord Ken Macdonald KC; Sir Max Hill KC; Lord Pannick KC; Richard Drabble KC; James Maurici KC; Carine Patry KC; Stephanie Harrison KC; Sonali Naik KC; Tim Owen KC; David Wolfe KC; Phillippa Kaufmann KC; Nick Armstrong KC; Chris Buttler KC; Zoe Leventhal KC; Stephen Cragg KC; Joe Middleton KC; Adam Straw KC; Philip Havers KC; Michael Mansfield KC; Professor Philippe Sands KC; Jolyon Maugham KC; Rebecca Hill; Maria Scotland; Alice Goodenough; Susan Ring; Sue Willman; Toufique Hossain; Jamie Beagent; Richard Stein; Dan Rosenberg; Charlotte Beck; Chris Bishop; Rachel Fletcher; Sara Chandler KC; Andrea Coomber KC; Prof Richard Moorhead
More should follow Welby
I read Helen King’s article about safeguarding with sadness and weary familiarity (“Cover-up of child abuse tried to ‘protect the work’ of a twisted theology’ ”, Focus)
I am a member of my church’s governing committee and was once a victim of sexual abuse by a predatory man who abused his church connections and my mother’s good nature to target me.
For too long, the shame of sexual abuse has stuck to innocent victims. It belongs to the perpetrators, and those who could have stopped them but didn’t. Let’s hope this unprecedented decision of an archbishop to resign leads to others named in the Makin report to have the decency to follow Justin Welby’s lead. Instead of making prompt and necessary changes to improve safeguarding, I fear the Church of England will revert to its usual agonisingly slow decision-making processes that don’t seem to serve anyone. I hope I am proved wrong.
Name and address supplied
Farmers and inheritance tax
Will Hutton articulated the good reasons why this tax should be introduced (“Farmers have hoarded land for too long. Inheritance tax will bring new life to rural Britain”, Comment). As always, farmers are never happy. While in the EU, they complained all the time about how the EU was not in their best interests. A large proportion of farmers then voted for Brexit. They are still not happy about any restrictions to exports. They are also not happy with the new system of funding for farmers. Now they are complaining about the introduction of inheritance tax. We all have to contribute to society and the reforms Labour is introducing will go towards the benefit of all people.
Edna Johnston
Newmarket, Suffolk
As a farmer, I have worked seven days a week, rarely taken holidays, have had to rely on diversified income streams to pay the mortgage and any surplus has been invested in the farm, which was ultimately going to be sold to provide a house and a pension. At 80 acres, it is probably worth in excess of £1m, but it is more of a lifestyle than provider of a living. As a first-generation farmer, I could never have afforded to increase the acreage sufficiently to create a viable operation, and operating with scattered fragments of land is inefficient. I would like to invite Hutton to spend some time on the farm.
Jonathan Murray
Westerdale, Whitby, North Yorkshire
The curse of celebrity authors
In regard to Catherine Bennett’s article, the huge advances paid to celebrity “authors” drains the pool of money that publishers have to pay other, full-time authors (“There is a moral in Jamie Oliver’s story of stereotypical folk, just not one he intended”, Comment). I made a reasonable living writing more than 100 books for children, but couldn’t do it now because the money offered to middle-ranking authors has shrunk as the advances paid to celebrities have risen. When I retired I was being offered the same advances as at the start of my career 35 years earlier.
Richard Platt
Hastings, Kent
Oxford tutors’ gig economy
Anna Fazackerley is right about the Uberisation of academic staff (Oxford relying on ‘Deliveroo-style’ contracts with most tutorials not taught by full-time staff, News).
Three main factors are at work. One, the corporatisation of the university has replaced the horizontal “republic of tutors” with a gulf between highly paid professors and senior managers and a reserve army of staff on casual contracts. Two, the sleight of hand that allows the temporary replacement of a permanent academic whose six or eight hours’ tutorial teaching per week (plus two courses of university lectures per year) is counted as full time, while the equivalent offer by non-permanent academics is counted as part time. Three, colleges do not recognise the University and College Union.
Robert Gildea, Professor Emeritus of Modern History
University of Oxford
A single market is the key
The lesson from Brexit for any government is the danger in making undeliverable promises and raising false hopes (“Closer ties with the EU is lever for economic growth”, Editorial).
Labour needs to be transparent about the realistic, achievable economic benefits of its planned reset with the EU. As the editorial states, “achieving sufficient alignment to have meaningful impact on GDP could take years”. Whereas alignment is imperative, the economic benefits, although worthwhile, will inevitably be small in relation to the real game-changer: rejoining the single market or customs union.
David Newens
Great Linford, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire
Tackling social anxiety
Social anxiety and shyness are on a continuum: the former is more intense and persistent (“Ask Philippa: I find it hard to make friends – now my daughter does, too”, Observer Magazine, 10 November). For those experiencing such problems, there are treatments available, including within the NHS Talking Therapies programme, and cognitive behavioural therapy.
People with social anxiety do not usually lack social skills, but anxiety can prevent them from expressing themselves naturally in situations they find difficult. We believe there should be more awareness of this treatable mental health problem.
Sarah Peacey, trustee, Social Anxiety Alliance, London N14
All at sea in the Colosseum
Wendy Ide thinks the idea of sharks in the Colosseum is silly (Gladiator II review – Paul Mescal fends off sharks, rhinos and a scenery-chewing Denzel Washington, New Review). However, aquatic games (naumachia) were common in Roman amphitheatres, although they were generally naval battles. The Romans weren’t familiar with sharks; catching and transporting them to Rome would have been problematic, but no harder than flooding and draining the Colosseum.
William Darlington
Stepps, Lanarkshire
