Baptist Perspectives
Over the last 50 years there have been no discussions or resolutions at The Baptist Assembly or at Baptist Union Council regarding assisted dying. Neither has there been any formal sounding of churches or ministers on the matter. However, the subject of assisted dying is clearly not new in the public square and over the last decade leaders within BUGB and BMS have affirmed statements made both ecumenically and alongside wider faith groups resisting any changes in the law. Some examples of these statements can be found below:
The vast majority of correspondence on this issue that has been received in recent months, has come from UK Baptists that consider assisted dying deeply problematic – comparatively few have shared views that demonstrate any sympathy with a change in the law.
Some perspectives that have been shared through the Baptist Times over the years can be found here:
Clearly this is a profoundly important subject that evokes deeply held convictions on both sides of the debate. It is a subject often addressed by people of faith because of the moral, ethical and spiritual dimensions that are relevant to the debate.
The cumulative arguments given by those deeply concerned about any change in law, leave many concluding they cannot support such changes.
From a Christian perspective, those against assisted dying often highlight the following:
-
The Sanctity of Life – Christians believe that all humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) – all human life therefore, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status, health, or their potential to achieve, is sacred and worthy of protection until its natural end. Some argue to support this bill would be to denigrate this wonderful and unique gift of life.
-
Defence of the Vulnerable – it is an undeniable biblical directive for those who follow God to uphold, protect and defend the vulnerable (Psalms 82:3-4, Isaiah 1:17, Matthew 25:36-40 – amongst others). Some say to support this bill would be to abscond our responsibility to those suffering, both those who are dying and those who love them.
-
God’s Response to those Suffering – those who have faith in God take tremendous comfort in knowing and sensing his presence with them in times of suffering and anguish (Matthew 11: 28-30, Psalm 23, Lamentations 3:22-26, 31-33). It is God’s will that we are present and caring toward others in their suffering, just as he has been present and caring for us (2 Corinthians 1:3-4). Some argue to support this bill would be to neglect the beauty and significance of divine encounter, and the profound dignity in caring for someone as they face death.
Often Christians will align themselves with complementary arguments made in the wider public square against assisted dying too.
-
The Slippery Slope – some would say it’s all very well putting certain safeguards in place in the first instance – but you just need to look at countries that have adopted similar laws in the past to see that such laws can open the door to expanded criteria and the normalisation of ending one's own life. For instance, in Canada over 4% of deaths are aided by doctors (in 2016, when assisted dying was introduced, around 1000 people ended their life under the new law, in 2022 that figure had risen to over 13,000 – a 30% increase on 2021 figures). It started with all the same debates and similar safeguards – but a couple of years later, the law changed so you didn’t need to have a terminal illness to seek assisted dying – now debates are being held to expand the criteria to those with mental health conditions. The worry is that if we open the door to assisted dying – there is an inevitability that safeguards will be loosened in the future.
-
Wider Societal Impact – those who argue for a change in the law often lean heavily on arguments of individual liberty and choice, but there will be consequences for wider society too – many wholly undesirable. Some argue opening the door to assisted dying will have the effect of creating lives that society come to consider ‘not worth living’, and normalise ableist assumptions about the inherent value and quality of life of a person with a disability, or even the elderly. Others point to the emotional consequences for medical practitioners who enable people to end their lives, and what about relatives and friends who are not at peace with their loved one’s decision?
-
Palliative Care – while many palliative care nurses and physicians are amongst the most caring and selfless medical practitioners around, few people would claim the care sector, and the palliative care sector in particular, is where it needs to be. More funding is needed, as are reforms, to ensure palliative care in the UK is world-class. Many who might be sympathetic to the principle of assisted dying might still resist this bill on the grounds that a choice between taking your own life, or risking inadequate end of life care, is not a choice at all.
-
Economic Considerations – it is a sad reality that economics plays a part in this debate too. If money is spent on assisted dying (with all its complex safeguards), does that mean money will not be available for other areas of the NHS that are in much need of investment? Is it not likely that Palliative Care for instance will receive less investment, if there is an alternative cheaper pathway to ending suffering? What about those who want to save the money they’re haemorrhaging on exorbitant care costs? If they want to leave something for their children/grandchildren might they feel a sense of duty to cut their lives short?
-
Self-coercion – while there are safeguards in place to minimise the possibility that someone might try to coerce patients or loved one to end their own lives, there remains an unavoidable possibility that some may feel a pressure to end their lives (even if it’s entirely self-afflicted) because they feel a ‘burden’.
These are just a few of the arguments made against legalising assisted dying. There are many others, and we’d encourage you to look through the signposted resources to explore these further.
Of course, some Christians are less resistant to such a change in law. After all, it is impossible not to be moved by the personal stories of those who are dying in pain (or in fear of pain), and those who have witnessed their loved ones go through what they would consider to be extended, excessive and futile suffering before death. In the light of this, some faith leaders have argued a change in the law might just be the right approach.
George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, has said in the past that while life is sacred, there is 'nothing sacred about suffering in itself' – and no one should be 'obliged to endure it'.
Pray for, and write to your MP
The second reading and debate will come to the House of Commons on 29 November 2024. For many MPs this might be their first serious debate on a matter of conscience. They will be wrestling with complex and often emotive arguments, considering how to have integrity in their own moral judgement while fairly representing the views and interests of their constituents. We have heard that in the context of the free vote, many MPs are particularly keen to hear the views of their constituents, but time is short, so please do contact them soon, should you feel so led.
We are aware of number of campaigns that are offering template texts, often from extreme ends of the debate. Might we gently encourage you to be careful to acknowledge the complexity and nuance of this debate in any correspondence you might send. Many people, including MPs, are not approaching this from a purely political standpoint – they may have had experiences of personal suffering or of watching loved ones die – whatever side of the fence we might land on, none of us should underestimate the pastoral responsibility we have to express our views with compassion, sensitivity and grace.
Please feel free to
send us your considered and prayerful response to assisted dying too.