Assisted dying bill - if the bill passes do those of strong religious conviction have a duty to oppose it?

[mids2019]

Assisted d dying may become a reality in the UK but if you have a strong two-hour conviction would you lobby for repeal of in some other way oppose it?

For instance in the NHS already many doctors are wanting to distance themselves from such a procedure as it isn't compatible with religious beliefs.

Is the UK ready for such a change of will it become a divisive element in British society?

Every single religion forbids any kind of assisted dying, based on the belief that one should never end a life that god has created.

Not true

Religion has no place at all in any law making procedure.
@LuckysDadsHat
Regardless of what you think about religion, people do have a place in law making procedure. And if those people have religious beliefs and convictions that will inevitably affect the way they view issues and can as such exercise their own individual rights/ power to influence the law. So it doesn't really matter if you as an individual don't like that because freedom of thought does allow for religious belief and thoughts result in actions.

Religion should absolutely not be allowed to have any influence on the formulation of any kind of legislation, including the right to assisted dying. You have a right to your religious belief, and a right to believe that you think you know what this “god” wants for people, but that belief doesn’t apply to me, and many many other people to this country . I would want to be given a choice to die in peace and dignity, if any illness progressed beyond a certain point, where there was no hope for improvement and it was just unending suffering. It would, and should, always be a choice. What you, and other people think “god” wants, is irrelevant, and should not have no influence in this matter. Because if they do pass this law, this will also mean that you will have a choice to abstain from assisted dying, should it come to that point. But if religion does influence the outcome of this legislation, and assisted dying remains illegal, then what “god” wants would mean that my right to make that choice, would be taken away. You have every right to your beliefs, but I want laws and legislation that puts humanity first, actual people
, over what other people think this god “wants for us”, or what they think is “his will”. It’s just all so archaic. We need a complete separation of state and religion. In 2024 there should be no bishops influencing any kind of legislation.

Studies and law cases on abuses.

Again, the idea that assisted dying (suicide) is a better death than dying with palliative care is not supported by the scientific evidence.

“The pervasive belief that these, or any, noxious drugs are guaranteed to provide for a peaceful and painless death must be dispelled; modern medicine cannot yet achieve this. Certainly some, if not most, executions and suicides have been complication-free, but this notion has allowed much of the general public to write them off as humane, and turn a blind eye to any potential problems.*”
https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/4/2/424/4265564?login=false

Religion should absolutely not be allowed to have any influence on the formulation of any kind of legislation

This is ridiculous.
Where do you think we got our laws against murder, theft, perjury?

Religion isn’t just about faith in a higher entity/being/purpose- most of it is a framework on how humans should treat each other.

Religion will always have an influence on legislation/laws.

Because if they do pass this law, this will also mean that you will have a choice to abstain from assisted dying..

Based on what has happened everywhere else that has legalised it, a not insignificant number of people are forced into assisted dying. Is choice for some at the real cost of others lives really worth it?

I disagree with this. We have laws against murder, etc because it’s wrong to kill people. Which even non religious people agree with. Just because something was also forbidden in the bible doesn’t mean that’s why we have a law against it now. The Old Testament says we should have the death penalty for grave sins but we don’t in this country. I don’t see people being locked up for mortal sins such as hating thy neighbour or blasphemy.

i have no problem with people objecting to assisted dying due to being concerned about people being coerced into it , or worry8ng about people with depression or dementia. It’s right that these points are raised and considered and argued out. I do totally object to any weight being given to objections based on religious points.

How about those with religious beliefs understand that other people are allowed to make different decisions to them and just choose for themselves.

If they don't want to do it, they don't have to.

I don't know why they think they have the right to interfere in the decisions that other people make for themselves.

Religion should be personal, not political.

If they do not want to participate, I'm sure a clause similar to that for abortion/contraception provision for HCPs can be arranged.

And why is it wrong to kill people? Come on you know the law originally came from religion.

You are right you don’t have to be religious to agree with the values and ethics that originated in a religion.

The Old Testament says we should have the death penalty for grave sins but we don’t in this country. I don’t see people being locked up for mortal sins such as hating thy neighbour or blasphemy.

Again, religion has always influenced law. We used to have the death penalty until the end of last century. ‘Hating your neighbour’ isn’t a sin. Blasphemy, we still do lock people up for under hate speech laws.

Religion also changes with the times and religious leaders interpretations. Christians don’t simply go by the “Old Testament”

My argument against assisted dying has nothing to do with religion. But the idea that religion can’t or shouldn’t have any influence on any type of law is impossible. Our society is founded on two millenia of Christianity such that Christian values are baked into our culture and legal system. Everything we are taught and think is right or wrong originates in Christianity. There is no erasing this fact and frankly, the values of a religion that teach us to be good human beings to each other are not a bad thing.

As a Christian, I absolutely agree with this.

It riles me when people try and claim "the Church" say X or Y.
I am a free thinking person and Christians, let alone any person with any sort of a faith, are not one single unit. Churches are made up of hundreds of thousands of individuals.

I would want to be given a choice to die in peace and dignity, if any illness progressed beyond a certain point, where there was no hope for improvement and it was just unending suffering. It would, and should, always be a choice

I completely agree with this, which is why I am cross that my opinion won't be heard. I wrote to my MP some time ago about this and got a considered reply back, which, in the end, said he will vote against the Bill.

Sadly, after Brexit, referendums have such a bad rep in this country, it isn't even something being considered, but I feel deprived of being able to register my opinion because my MP has taken a different stance from me.

Yes, of course i know where we get our laws from, but going forwards we can start formulating legislation, and a framework for existing as a society, that is not grounded in the bible and on what religious people believe god wants them to do. Of course this would take many life times to alter, but I hope that will be the future, where religion, god, the bible are not referenced or the basis of any law in society. And in any case, most decent people don’t need a bible, or any kind of religion to tell them that killing and stealing is bad, for example. Most people know those things are wrong and don’t need self appointed holy men tell them it’s wrong. Just.because something has been done for ever, doesn’t mean that it needs to continue, in that direction. Humanity over religion, every time. Time to move forward.

Goodness, religion categorically does not have a monopoly on any kind of morality, or just doing the right thing. Millions of people have been doing the right thing, since the start of time, before Jesus or any other prophets appeared. There is growing research that proves that pre historic societies had indeed a form of mortality and ethics that guided their co existence, and contributed to their survival, with no Jesus in sight.

Well fact is we had thousands of years of holy men telling us that killing and theft is wrong and that is precisely why we think it is wrong even today in more secular times.

In other societies religions killing was not only permitted in certain circumstances but a duty and in others there was no concept of personal property and therefore no such thing as theft.

Most people know the Christian view because of the thousands of years of living under it. They don’t magically know this coming out of the womb.

I agree “the church” has no say on assisted dying, but you are off your rocker if you think that religion will play no part at all in influencing people’s views or the votes of MPs on this bill. There is no way for it not to.

Correct their ethics were not the same as Christian ethics but ancient and prehistoric societies did in fact have their own religions then too! Complete with priests & priestesses, or even Gods incarnate that were telling them what was right or wrong.

And what was right or wrong has never ever been wholly consistent across the ages.

You see, this is what worries me. The current proposals seem reasonable to me, but other countries have extended it to mental illness, including eating disorders. I know my DD - and many others : would have seen death as a relief, when in the throes of an eating disorder. She is now in strong recovery and living her best life.

Thousands of years before any Abrahamic prophets appeared, there were many advanced civilisations with highly developed codes of morality, ethnics and conduct. The Egyptian civilisations, the various Mesoamerican civilisations, the Mesopotamian civilisation, the Indus Valley civilisation, the etc etc - these were highly evolved societies that existed, and thrived over millennia. Do you think that these civilisation would have continued to exist, for often thousands of years, if they didn’t have a structure of morality, that for example, made it clear that killing was actually wrong, because it would be detrimental to their societal order, and therefore continued existence, and that it was just the wrong thing to do? Of course they wouldn’t have. But no matter what the civilisation or belief system, since the start of time, there have always been people who kill, and do the wrong thing, as they continue to do so now, in the present day, but Christianity, and all the recent religions have not managed to stamp that out, for all their influence and power, and pontificating. And so many atrocities, have been committed in the name of this most recent and patriarchal Abrahamic god, but which are still being justified because it’s „”gods will”, or similar.

I didn’t say that religion will play no part at all influencing people’s views of or the votes of MPs on this bill. My point is that these views should absolutely not be allowed to influence the outcome of something as so important as assisted and legalised dying, Your personal religious beliefs and views, are your complete right, and they should be protected but only in as far as they personally serve you. The choice will always be yours. But if this bill does pass, based on religious objections, than that will automatically remove my right to choose, on the basis of what religious people believe „”god” wants. But it’s not my god, if „”he” actually does exist. On the basis of this, if the bill does become law, you and all the the other religious people will still have a choice to decide, but if it goes the other way, I won’t. And that, would be immeasurably immoral.

Meant to say that if this bill doesn’t get passed, due to religious objections…

Apologies for the typo.

On the basis of this, if the bill does become law, you and all the the other religious people will still have a choice to decide, but if it goes the other way, I won’t. And that, would be immeasurably immoral.)

@OneDandyPoet, but that's what laws are there for. They restrict choice - the choice to do something that is wrong/harmful. It's like with mental health and sectioning. Someone is liable to be sectioned and their autonomy, the right to make choices for themselves, restricted if they are deemed to be in danger of harming themselves or others.

The fear comes as you get older and realise it is much cheaper to kill people than keep them alive.

If it were the opposite way around there would not be so much angst.

So, what’s your point? I don’t want religious people, who claim to know what their god wants, influencing a law that would ultimately allow me to die when I wanted, if it became unbearable. This law, should be about the human, and not about someone’s god.

"I don’t want religious people, who claim to know what their god wants, influencing a law" @OneDandyPoet

The law is about humanity.
The expressed belief in God doesn't negate someone's right to be heard anymore than an atheists non belief negates their right to be heard. The whole community in a democracy with the right to free speech is allowed to be part of the debate.

As we have seen earlier there are people of faith who would support the bill and people without faith who do not.

No religion is going to "capture" the debate but everyone has a right to be heard. We are all would live under the law

NRTFT

I think anyone has the right to disagree/oppose anything for what ever reason they want. HOWEVER, Drs should 100% separate their religious beliefs from their job. Their job is to do what’s right for their patients, if they can’t separate the 2 they should not be doctors.