Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL]

My Lords, I start by correcting something said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not here. He said that the Select Committee did not consider the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. In fact, paragraph 245 of the report makes it quite clear that the committee did consider it. Indeed, why did the committee go to Oregon and Switzerland if a Bill of this kind was not considered? I respect the views of those who oppose the Bill for deeply held religious reasons. I also recognise non-religious reasons. But I do not respect, and I regret, the nature of the campaign waged against the Bill, at vast expense, by the Churches and senior Church leaders, much of which either ignores or distorts the evidence. I shall give a number of examples. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, writing in the Catholic Herald, said:"““A right to die would become a duty to die””." That claim was repeated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who also expressed the concern, which he repeated in rather different words today, that the motive behind the Bill was the need to cut costs in healthcare. With the greatest respect, that was a most extraordinary statement. The evidence from Oregon is clear; very few people—only 0.14 per cent of those who die—use the law, although many more ask for prescriptions. It comforts them to know that they can use it, but most do not. The idea that the Oregon law leads to a duty to die is simply an invention designed to scare, with not a shred of evidence to support it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said:"““implicit in the legislative proposals is the possibility that assisted dying could eventually apply to children””." No child in Oregon has been, or could legally be, helped to die. Nor could they be, under the Bill. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith said:"““those deemed elderly are viewed as expendable””—" another somewhat hysterical distortion. It is true that many people fear—a fear that many noble Lords have expressed—that families might put pressure on elderly parents to commit suicide; a rather cynical view, if I may say so. The evidence from Oregon shows clearly that this fear is misplaced. As one would expect, family pressure is almost invariably to prolong life. In fact, elderly people in Oregon use the Act less than others. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who is president of the Catholic Union and who I am sorry to say is not here, suggested that the Bill’s approach was:"““Why waste money on care for the terminally ill?””." In fact, palliative care in Oregon is among the best in America, and the law there has stimulated even further improvement. The Church Times likened the Bill’s supporters to Nazis. It wrote:"““If doctors are required to end life by withdrawing treatment and food””—" which is a complete distortion of the Bill—"““that is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany””." That is a statement of which Dr Goebbels would have been proud. Anyone who reads with an open mind the evidence that the committee heard in Oregon—the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will say more about this—will find that the experience there provides no basis for allegations that the elderly, the disabled or other vulnerable groups will suffer, that there will be a slippery slope, and that the Bill will destroy the doctor/patient relationship. I should say to noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, who are worried about the effect that it would have on relationships with doctors, that the Bill does not follow the Dutch law, but it is worth noting that in the Netherlands trust in doctors is the highest in Europe, and an overwhelming proportion of Dutch doctors support the law there. I hope that some Bishops in this debate will disown these distortions, and I very much applaud the attitude taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I have not quoted the rantings of cranks who write in green ink; the statements I quoted were made by leading members of the Churches.