A former Supreme Court president has said it is “not a very Christian thing” to allow someone to continue suffering if they want help to end their lives.
Baroness Hale of Richmond said that denying someone assisted dying is “terribly cruel”.
It comes after the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was brought before MPs in the House of Commons earlier this week.
In a conversation with former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for Prospect magazine, Lady Hale said: “It’s not a very Christian thing to do to oblige somebody to go on suffering unbearably when they do not wish so to do, and when they are in full possession of their faculties.
“We can talk about what that means. To force life upon them by denying them the assistance they need still seems to me to be a terribly cruel thing to do.”
As a Supreme Court justice in 2014, Lady Hale expressed the view that the protection of vulnerable people was not sufficient to justify a “universal ban” on assisted suicide.
Dr Williams said he could not countenance assisted dying for himself, saying it is not “compatible” with his Christian commitment.
Asked if it is a human right for someone to choose their time and manner of death, he replied: “I don’t think that is compatible with how I understand Christian ethics, but that’s an in-house concern.
“I don’t believe in such a right, as such.”
The pair also discussed the “you wouldn’t let a dog suffer like this” argument for assisted dying.
Dr Williams said: “No… but I think that’s partly because however strongly one believes in animal rights, the reciprocity of the relationship, the conversational nature of the relationship is not the same there.
“So, I can understand why good deaths for animals make some sense because there isn’t that mutual investment.”.
He went on: “What’s in my mind is that, as human beings, we talk to each other about our sensations, about our feelings, our hopes and fantasies, and we make our decisions in that context.
“With animals we have less to go on. We have evidence of turmoil, suffering, we have evidence of distress, capacity, and nothing much else to put into the mix with human beings.”
Tony Nicklinson, who suffered locked-in syndrome after a catastrophic stroke, died days after his right-to-die case was rejected by the High Court in 2012.
The 58-year-old’s fight was taken to the Supreme Court by his widow Jane Nicklinson, along with the case of paralysed former builder Paul Lamb, in 2014.
The case was rejected, but Lady Hale was one of two justices who took the view that there was a human right to decide the time and manner of one’s death.
Sir Keir Starmer had said he was “committed” to allowing a vote on legalising assisted dying should his party win the general election.
On Wednesday, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater formally introduced her Bill to give choice at the end of life for the terminally ill.
A debate and first vote are expected to take place on November 29.
If the Bill passes the first stage in the Commons, it will go to committee stage where MPs can table amendments, before facing further scrutiny and votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, meaning any change in the law would not be agreed until next year at the earliest.
It applies only to England and Wales.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel