Moments before the result on the assisted dying bill was announced earlier today, I saw a WhatsApp message telling me we had lost the vote. My heart sank and I exchanged depressed glances with some of my fellow anti-assisted dying Lib Dem colleagues. I prayed earnestly that those figures were in error.
Then the result was revealed: the Ayes had 270 votes and the Noes, 286 votes. I felt a spine-tingling sense of God at work, a deep relief… but no desire to be triumphalist.
The advocates for assisted dying are motivated by compassion for those suffering. It’s important to recognise that MPs come to this debate from a range of complex standpoints, and not to demonise those who hold different views. Leaving the Commons, I put my arm around a pro-assisted dying colleague from another party who was sobbing. To her, this bill would have alleviated suffering and that prospect had just been snatched away.
That said, I return to Westmorland from Westminster with a sense of joy that MPs have stopped this dangerous bill in its tracks. It is highly unlikely that this issue will return in this parliament.
Legislating as a Christian
Throughout this debate, those of us who are Christians – and indeed Muslims, Jews and other faith groups – have been patronised by some on the pro side, telling us we can have our "religious views" on assisted dying, but we must not let them inform our decisions in the public square.
Maybe now is the time to explain why as a Christian I oppose assisted dying, and why it is completely legitimate for me to allow that to influence how I vote and legislate.
"Perhaps hubris from the pro leadership was their downfall, but it is vital that we strive to show humility in contrast."
As a Christian, I believe that God creates every human in His image. This means that not only do we have equal worth to one another; we have mind-blowingly, infinitely lofty worth. What does that mean in practice for this issue? Well, we know that palliative care is not available equally. If you have the right postcode or the right income, if you or your children are articulate, then you will probably get good care. But if you are poor, lacking advocates, from a minority ethnic community, disabled or elderly then you are far less likely to get good palliative care. For such people, then, assisted dying would not be a choice, it would be Hobson’s choice.
I also see humans as eternal beings, and believe that life is a precious gift of God that is not ours to discard. I see caring as essential to our humanity – it is a privilege to care and to be cared for. I resent an attempt to sanitise life and death, placing the god of autonomy over love for our neighbour.
A belief that all humans – including the most vulnerable – have a value way beyond that which our culture considers to be the case, is not oppressing people! You may say I am imposing my dogma on you, but it is a dogma that says you matter far more than you think you do. It is a dogma that says those who count as least in this unfair world matter enormously and must be defended. Those who hold a worldview – a dogma, even – that says we are temporary biological accidents, and don’t possess lasting value, have every right in a liberal society to have their views informed by that dogma. They do not, however, have the right to be considered as the neutral position and to complain of Christians "forcing their views" on others. Some MPs made such suggestions in today’s debate, but this position utterly lacks in consistency or intellectual credibility.
Why the vote went to the Noes
Today’s vote saw a shift from the narrow victories for the pro-assisted dying side last year, to a win for the no side. I think the main reasons for the shift included a growing awareness of the opposition and unease from expert groups such as the Association of Palliative Care Doctors, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. It also included a deep concern – including from some MPs who support the principle of assisted dying – about a perceived haughty, high-handedness from the bill’s movers who were seeking to steamroller it through by use of the Parliament Act without accepting any amendments that may have made it safer.
Perhaps hubris from the pro leadership was their downfall, but it is vital that we strive to show humility in contrast. This is not a moment of triumph, but of relief, gratitude to God and of understanding the deep desire by many on all sides to seek to alleviate suffering at end of life. My response is not to pop any champagne corks, but to seek ways of ensuring that good quality palliative care is available to everyone and not just those who are privileged.
The rise of populist politics?
The Clacton by-election takes place on 13th August with 33 candidates – none from the main political parties – challenging …