• ASSISTED dying could more accurately be called assisted suicide, providing help for someone to take their own life.

To legalise it would reframe our accepted understanding of the value of human life. So we really do need to ask if this is good and necessary.

No one can doubt the sensitivity surrounding the issues involved. Any discussion needs to be compassionate as well as realistic.

But as opposed to Janice Long (Most want the option of assisted dying, Forum, October 11), I would argue Kim Leadbeater MP’s bill is the wrong answer to a genuine need.

An opinion poll is not a sufficient basis for changing the law. If our MPs engage with this serious debate in a more than a superficial way, I hope they will see that however worthy the motives of Leadbeater and her supporters, the assisted dying bill is not the way forward.

We expect the law to protect the weak and vulnerable. So who are we talking about here?

Relatives and friends of someone suffering a painful terminal illness themselves often go through a distressing experience. But we would not consider a change of the law to ease the distress of relatives or friends.

No, it is the terminally ill patient we are concerned with. And the argument is that the law should allow some the right to get help to end their suffering.

But are there other vulnerable people we need to consider?

No, says Leadbeater and her supporters. The bill has safeguards which mean that no one else needs to worry. This will simply be giving a choice to a small number of seriously ill people.

Is that really the whole story though? Imagine a much loved elderly relative who does not want to die. Imagine their thoughts and feelings if they think that doctors are going to suggest the possibility. Or if they feel they are regarded as a financial burden on their family or the state.

A change in the law creating the option to assist suicide would create an intolerable pressure for someone like this, made far worse if any of those involved are “bad actors”, concerned with their own interests not that of the patient.

I know supporters of Leadbeater say the bill would prevent this. But history suggests, if passed, it would be the trigger for a much bigger change, with unintended consequences affecting many people who would not want to end their life.

For one thing, permitting doctors to be involved in assisting suicide would certainly change the way the medical profession is viewed. Patients would no longer be secure in the knowledge that their life is regarded by all as sacrosanct.

More than that, a fundamental change of the law like this would open a Pandora’s box.

Allowing active help for suicide would be a step closer to much wider euthanasia, with the most vulnerable (the elderly, sick, disabled) at most risk. Good intentions would not prevent bad outcomes and we need to recognise that now, before it is too late.

My own view is rooted in a Christian understanding of human nature and life as a gift of God. But you don’t need to believe in God to be against the bill.

I have been struck by seeing non-believing commentators of all shades of political opinion – right, left, liberal centrists – who are deeply concerned about Leadbeater’s proposal and oppose it. They know where this is likely to end up and they see it as a great danger to many vulnerable people.

The bill raises an important issue, but we are being presented with the wrong choice. The way to tackle the clear need of those facing a painful terminal illness is to provide much better palliative care.

That campaign would enjoy support from both sides of the debate and it’s where attention should now be focused.

ANDREW MURRAY
Pastor
Hope Community Church
Kemp House,
Berwick Street, W1