close
close

On the eve of the vote on assisted suicide in the UK, Cardinal Vincent Nichols defends the role of religion in public life

On the eve of the vote on assisted suicide in the UK, Cardinal Vincent Nichols defends the role of religion in public life

The leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has vigorously defended the role of religion in the political debate on assisted suicide, as members of Parliament prepare to vote on the issue tomorrow.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, was asked to respond to comments by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, former Lord Chancellor, who told The Guardian on November 24 that “religious beliefs” should not be imposed on others when it comes to the debate on assisted suicide.

In an interview with Times Radio on November 25, Nichols said: “I thought we lived in a democracy where people were allowed to express their views and put forward arguments, and rational ones at that. If Mr. Falconer can’t expand that space to include religious beliefs, then I’m actually not sure why he would be involved in politics.”

He continued: “It is not that politics is a separate, isolated way of life, it is part of the life of this country. Religious faith is very much a part of life in this country, and most people in the world actually believe in God. So it’s Charlie Falconer in the box, not me.”

The vote on assisted suicide scheduled for tomorrow in the House of Commons will be “on a knife edge”, according to voting forecasts. The latest analysis by Election Maps UK shows that 285 MPs are in favor of the new law and 289 against it.

Asked by Times Radio how he would feel if assisted suicide were legalized in England and Wales, Nichols replied: “I would be concerned for the many vulnerable people who would feel under pressure. You know that the right to die can easily become an obligation that eats away at self-confidence.”

Nichols also added his signature to a letter published on November 24, signed by a number of religious leaders – including Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox leaders – expressing “their deep concern” about the bill’s impact. Reads:

“An estimated 2.7 million older people in the UK have been victims of abuse; many may also be susceptible to pressure to end their lives prematurely. Disability activists and people working with women in abusive relationships also highlighted the danger of unintended consequences if the law were changed.

“The experiences of jurisdictions that have introduced similar legislation, such as Oregon and Canada, show 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 can still feel like a burden at the end of their lives. This is particularly the case when adult social care remains underfunded. In this situation, it is easy to see how the ‘right to die’ can all too easily end in a sense of duty to die.”

Meanwhile, in the run-up to the debate, an increasing number of significant political figures are speaking out against the bill.

Former prime ministers Boris Johnson, Teresa May, Liz Truss and Gordon Brown all expressed their opposition to the bill, while David Cameron, who was prime minister from 2010 to 2016, changed his mind in favor of assisted dying.

Prominent members of the government in attendance, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, made it clear that they opposed changing the law and would vote against the bill.

The highly controversial bill is sponsored by MP Kim Leadbeater and is scheduled for five hours of debate in the House of Commons tomorrow.

After the debate, a vote will be held and if the bill is ratified, it will move to the next stage of the legislative process.

The Terminally Ill (End of Life) Act would allow terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to apply for physician-assisted suicide.

(Story continues below)

Sign up for our daily newsletter

MPs have a “free vote” on this matter, which means they can vote according to their conscience rather than following the party line.