That Religious Studies Website


Euthanasia

Applied ethics

Recently added to the site

Christian attitudes to euthanasia (Appendix): Letter to the House of Lords Select Committee (2004)

Information: This is a copy of a letter sent to the House of Lords on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, with the Joint Submission of the Church of England House of Bishops and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales on the 2nd September 2004. This is an appendix to the article Christian attitudes to euthanasia (Part 2): Church of England and other Christian views, and is taken from Assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia - A Briefing Paper from the Mission and Public Affairs Council (Link opens as a Word doc.). A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Dear Lord Mackay,

Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill

We are writing to send your Committee a joint submission from the Church of England House of Bishops and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

We believe very strongly that respect for human life at all its stages is the foundation of a civilised society, and that the long term consequences of any change in the law to allow euthanasia in limited circumstances would be immensely grave. This is a view shared not just within our Churches, but very widely among those of all faiths and none who share a moral outlook founded on respect for human life and the protection of vulnerable people.

As you know, having considered the evidence and the arguments against legalising euthanasia in great depth, the House of Lords Committee on Medical Ethics in 1994 firmly rejected any change in the law to allow euthanasia. They concluded:

"The right to refuse medical treatment is far removed from the right to request assistance in dying. We spent a long time considering the very strongly held and sincerely expressed views of those witnesses who advocated voluntary euthanasia... Ultimately, however, we do not believe that these arguments are sufficient reason to weaken society's prohibition of intentional killing. That prohibition is the cornerstone of law and of social relationships. It protects each one of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. We do not wish that protection to be diminished and we therefore recommend no change in the law to permit euthanasia. We acknowledge that there are individual cases in which euthanasia may be seen by some to be appropriate. But individual cases cannot reasonably establish the foundation of a policy which would have such serious and widespread repercussions." [HMSO, London, 1994, paras 236-7].

We hope and pray that your Committee will reaffirm and endorse that conclusion, given that the strength of the arguments against euthanasia are undiminished, and the empirical evidence of the damaging effects of legalising euthanasia in the Netherlands is even stronger now.

In our submission we have sought briefly to set out what seem to us the key fundamental principles and then we make some specific points on this particular Bill. We hope your Committee will find it helpful.

With every good wish

Yours sincerely,

Archbishop of Canterbury

Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster

Back to top