Why We Must All Oppose the UK's Assisted Suicide Bill

Few issues cut to the heart of human dignity and ethics, like (voluntary and involuntary) euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Both continue to ignite intense global debate, raising critical ethical, legal, and societal questions that we must address.

While there’s a technical distinction—assisted suicide involves the patient self-administering a lethal substance rather than a medical practitioner—the outcome is the same. For simplicity, this article uses the terms interchangeably.

At its core, assisted suicide involves the killing of a human being, mostly under the banner of “compassion” and relief from suffering. However, as this article explores, the line between compassion and callousness in euthanasia is perilously thin.

Back in 1826, physician Carl Friedrich Marx asserted that a doctor should never intentionally hasten a patient’s death, whether out of compassion or external pressure. This view mirrored long-standing beliefs, particularly in Christian and Western societies, where assisted suicide was equated with murder and strictly forbidden.

This view shifted in the late 19th century as euthanasia movements gained traction. Fast forward to 2001 and 2002, when the Netherlands and Belgium became the first countries to legalise euthanasia, spurring a growing list of countries to follow suit. The UK, however, remains deeply divided, with a contentious assisted suicide bill currently under parliamentary debate.

The UK Bill

As parliamentarians prepare to vote on the legalisation of assisted suicide in England and Wales on November 29th, we, as a society, need to raise the grave implications of such a law.

If passed, this catastrophic proposal — the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — would allow the state to end the lives of vulnerable people.

For the first time, UK law would allow medical professionals to prepare a lethal substance, which the patient would then self-administer, thus totally redefining healthcare.

While assisted suicide differs from euthanasia, where doctors are in charge of administering the lethal substance, the end result remains the same.

Assisted suicide involves the killing of a human being, mostly under the banner of “compassion” and relief from suffering. This act betrays the core principles of equality and respect for life enshrined in human rights.

It implies that the lives of the terminally ill, elderly, physically or mentally ill, or those living with disabilities are not worthy of genuine compassion, care, and the fundamental right to life.

Most palliative care specialists in the UK — around 90% — stand firmly against legalising euthanasia. They know that, with quality palliative care, almost no one chooses to end their life. They also recognise the immense pressure legal euthanasia would place on the terminally ill to end their lives.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not healthcare.

Read More About Euthanasia and the UK Bill

As MPs vote on this bill, we invite you to read our full commentary for further insights into euthanasia and assisted suicide, including its history and the flawed arguments in favor of these dangerous societal practices.

No one should ever be made to feel that their life is a burden on society or a drain on government resources. We all have an inalienable right to life from conception to natural death, and yet, society is trying to tell us that human life is disposable.

We’ve already seen that in countries where assisted suicide is legal, the criteria for assisted suicide can be expanded to include those without terminal diagnoses — and who can truly predict the length of time a person has to live or should live?

Read More.