The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) is unequivocally opposed to Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill (End of Life) Bill, as we have been with other previous attempts to give power to the state to control life and death, and rubber stamp what in no uncertain terms is ‘assisted suicide’. The use of euphemisms continues to be deployed by those supporting this controversial Bill, often to soften the reality of what is being proposed here – state sanctioned suicide. This was aptly illustrated in the debate during the second reading of the Bill. A point of order was raised by a Labour MP accusing Danny Kruger MP of using ‘incorrect language’ with his use of the word ‘suicide’. As Kruger rightly clarified, ‘what the Bill would do is amend the Suicide Act 1961. It would allow people to assist with a suicide for the first time.’
As Sikhs we accept that life is a gift of God. A gift which is to be cherished and preserved wherever possible. We are also required to constantly bear in mind the important Sikh teaching of compassion and dignity, which encompasses care for those suffering. From a Sikh perspective, these two considerations are not necessarily incompatible. We look to the example of Guru Har Krishan, our 8th Guru, who helped those inflicted by smallpox during an epidemic. He saw caring for the sick and vulnerable as a sacred duty – he supported the vulnerable and dying with ‘assisted living’. Today, many in the British Sikh community, care for their parents and grandparents and consider it a duty to do so. The emphasis on caring for the vulnerable and elderly, is reflected in the 2021 Census data, where approximately one in three people who identified as ‘Sikh’ are shown to live in multi-family, or multi-generational households, which contrasts with 11.1% of the broader population of England and Wales.
Sikh teachings also advise that the way to real contentment is to forget self and look to the wellbeing of others. A Christian theologian put it in even stronger terms when he wrote: ‘it is the I in the middle of sin that makes it sin’. Indeed, it is the same narrow thinking that leads to the argument that an individual’s life is his or her own, and curtailing life is okay if that’s what the individual wants. The poet John Donne reminds us otherwise when he writes that no man is an island; we are all part of the mainland and death, or suffering impacts others that goes beyond the individual concerned. A person’s decision to end their own life does not end there but has an impact on relatives. It sends the wrong message of trivialising life to wider society.
Although the Bill went to vote after its second reading and passed, we are hopeful it can still be defeated at third reading. We are confident the 30 MPs who voted for the Bill for the sake of further and more robust debate, could vote it down and defeat it. We implore those MPs who voted in favour of the legislation under this pretext, to carefully reconsider their position – and focus on the importance of ‘assisted living’, which means improvement in NHS palliative care services, rather than implementing state sanctioned suicide.
Most remarkably, as things stand, we now understand even if evidence of coercion is established, then a decision by a judge to give permission for ‘assisted dying’ cannot be appealed or challenged. Nor will the friends and family of an individual be informed by a court which has given permission for ‘assisted dying’. In a 2017 case, Lord Justice Sales, said, ‘external pressures might be very subtle and not visible to the court’. We believe this critical aspect is therefore nothing short of an insuperable hurdle, for which there can be no possible safeguards whatsoever. Oddly some proponents of this Bill appear to suggest ‘coercion’ works the other way, where loved ones of those who’ve opted for ‘assisted dying’ in other jurisdictions have attempted to persuade them otherwise. But this is frankly a perverse way to view commitment and care people have for friends and family. Offering love where there is despair, and hope where the vulnerable feel a burden, is the best of humanity, not ‘coercion’!
Notably, not a single disability organisation has come out in support of the Bill, and they are right to be fearful of the implications of this legislation (if passed) will have on life and death as we know it. Disability Rights UK have said they are ‘deeply dismayed’ by the passing by MPs at the second reading and see this as ‘a profound betrayal to disabled people across the UK’. We at the NSO, stand in solidarity with them. If this Bill passes, we would have crossed the rubicon, where death is considered an option for those who feel like a burden to society. Moreover, we’ve seen how in other countries ‘assisted dying’ legislation gradually expands to other vulnerable groups. In Canada this will include those with mental health by 2027, and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), has already been an option for social reasons, like for the homeless and those living in isolation.
If this Bill passes, the inevitable expansion, or ‘slippery slope’ to other vulnerable groups here, is therefore extremely perturbing to us. Indeed, there will be legal recourse for this expansion to other vulnerable groups, based on the Human Rights Act 1988, which prohibits discrimination. We believe this Bill demeans society and will pressurise the vulnerable to take their own lives. We sincerely hope our serious concerns and faith led preference for ‘assisted living’, as opposed to state sanctioned suicide, is given careful consideration by MPs at committee stage.
Network of Sikh Organisations
Cc Kim Leadbeater MP
Cc Sikh heritage MPs
CC Danny Kruger MP
[ENDS]
