How big of a role is religion playing in the assisted dying debate?
| Updated:
Politicians being influenced by their religious beliefs on assisted dying is perfectly valid - but should they be more upfront about it?
Listen to this article
Read time: 4 minutes
In brief…
- Faith leaders have come out in force to oppose the proposed legislative change.
- But religious MPs have been reluctant to state - or have denied - their faith being the motivating factor behind their opposition to the assisted dying bill.
- The News Agents say MPs should be honest about their motivations, arguing religious principles are hard to distinguish from one’s political values.
How big of a role is religion playing in the assisted dying debate?
What’s the story?
“Religion rarely plays a role in the debate on public policy in this country”, says Jon Sopel.
But with the assisted dying bill, this may not be the case.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill is driving a wedge between MPs, with politicians from across the divide split on which way to vote on 29 November.
For religious MPs, one might expect them to be largely against the proposed law change given that much campaigning against it has been carried out by religious groups.
Jon points out that religious MPs “are overrepresented versus the population overall.”
So how much are their religious views playing into how they will vote? How transparent are they about this, and is it right?
How is religion involved in the debate?
Earlier this week, a group of 29 faith leaders representing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Seeks signed a joint letter urging MPs to vote against the bill.
The letter, signed by the Bishop of London, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi, reads: “Over decades we have witnessed how compassionate care, along with the natural processes of dying, allow those at the end of their life to experience important moments.
“We have seen relationships repair and families reconcile. We have seen lives end in love. Much can be lost by cutting these processes short.”
While no MP has clearly stated they are opposing the bill purely on religious grounds, some have been accused of doing so.
Lord Falconer, an ally of Sir Keir Starmer, claimed that justice secretary Shabana Mahmood was against the proposed changes in the law due to “religious and spiritual reasons”.
He argues that religious views should not “determine the choices that people have in their death”. “Generally, the people who are opposed to it are opposed to it on spiritual grounds … There’s nothing wrong with religion – but that obviously colours their view and is not an objective stance on things like safeguards,” he says.
Mahmood, however, did not mention faith in her letter to the Observer stating why she is against assisted dying.
She wrote that legalising the process would be a “slippery slope towards death on demand” and argued “the state should never offer death as a service”.
Lewis Goodall says there’s a reason why MPs are leaving out faith-based motivations when putting forward their objections. “Very prominent people are talking about this issue and they are being motivated in all sorts of ways by their religious beliefs, which is completely fine.
“But they are not overt about it because they know… that if they were to anchor their opposition for religious reasons, that it would generate opposition and distaste because of how secular Britain is.”
Assisted dying bill 'difficult to navigate' for MPs
What’s The News Agents’ take?
Lewis thinks it would be “better if politicians were to be more open that their religion is a primary motivating factor.”
Jon Sopel argues that people can feel “slightly uncomfortable” when we hear a politician reaching for religious principles as a way of guiding them in a decision.
That’s in part, Emily Maitlis argues, because we’re so aggressively secular about what we demand from our politicians”.
She says: “It’s almost like it makes you sound like a crank, that you've lost your ability to think clearly, if you mention God.”
But that doesn’t mean it should be left out of the debate, she says.
Emily adds: “I think the spiritual side of things and your religion is really fundamental to this whole question. I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying I don't understand how you could have a religion and it not come into your view on this debate.”
Lewis argues that it is not so clear cut. He says: “I think it's an interesting question to ask, the extent to which politicians in this debate and others are adequately divorcing their own religious beliefs and their political practice on an issue like this. Whether that's possible or not, I don’t know.”
Jon says this is a “false distinction”. He argues: “People have their principles, the philosophical underpinnings of what they think and why they think it.
"Some of it has come from life experience, some of it has come from religion. Some of it has come from their university education and you don't need to say, 'I think this because of X, because of the Bible, or I think this because of the Quran'… You just think that these are my principles. This is what's guiding me.”
Listen in full on The News Agents.
