My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I begin by acknowledging reverence for all contributors to this debate, which touches on our deepest emotions: lacrimae rerum, the things of which tears are made.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, reminded us that, since the end of capital punishment, causing the death of another citizen is not allowed in our law, other than in war. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert of
Toggle showing location ofColumn 2522South Downs, was not alone in describing the introduction of a provision in law to cause death as a “crossing the Rubicon” moment. Although the right to life, enshrined in law, is a moral principle consistent with the Christian faith, it should not be regarded as the imposition of Christianity on the pluralist democracy we are proud to be. However, many Christians, including myself, see the Bill as crossing the Rubicon, and this is why.
Christians derive commitment to the sanctity of life from our understanding of the very nature of God as Trinity: three persons, not begotten or made of material substance, one in nature and omnipotence, but distinct persons in the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Distinctness and relationality in God also become characteristic of how and what, in love, God makes us to be as human beings, endowing us with free will and the capacity to use or misuse God’s gift of life in all its dimensions. A unique likeness to God, which encompasses an immaterial, spiritual dimension, subsists equally, we believe, in the flesh and blood of every human being. This is a foundational contribution to the common-law prohibition of homicide, and it consequently inhibits us as Christians from supporting legislation to take the life of another person, as envisaged in the Bill.
Furthermore, the Bible repeatedly identifies compassion as essential to the nature of God, so human suffering, especially around the end of life, compels us to press ever more urgently for significant, increased and sustained investment in palliative care and to learn lessons from the hospice movement’s attention to the qualities of distinctive, individual needs and relationships, in sharp contrast to the complex bureaucratic processes outlined in the Bill.
Our scrutiny of the Bill must also assess its disproportionate effect on many people, which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to, who already doubt whether they are valued and understood—people, for example, in the outer estates of coastal towns and the shadowlands of rural villages where I minister in Sussex. The Bill takes from them the law’s protection of their right to life. It is a fundamental assault on their dignity.
When Pope Benedict XVI addressed Parliament in 2010, he asked where the ethical foundation for political choices was to be found and whether social consensus was a sufficient basis for addressing the moral dilemmas, considerable as they are, of the present age. Beyond a limited degree of social consensus, I do not see a solid ethical foundation for what is presented in the Bill. Human dignity demands of us better treatment.
Hansard Vol 848 Column 2522