Death, legislated

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s Thursday the 15th of January.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

First up: A question of life and death.

A bill in Britain could allow doctors to assist in ending the lives of people who have terminal illnesses.

BROWN: Debated since 2024, the End of Life bill has divided Parliament and the public. The outcome is still uncertain.

WORLD associate correspondent Claire Wilkerson traveled to England for the story.

CLAIRE WILKERSON: In 2022, Allison Fenner was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Soon after, she traveled to Switzerland to find a doctor willing to help end her life.

Her daughter, Catie, found out about her mother’s suicide in a text message.

CATIE FENNER: For some people, the thought of a painful death or a death that's out of your control and undignified is just absolutely horrendous. It was for my mum.

For her, the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, also called the End of Life bill, is personal.

Since her mother’s death, Catie has become a champion of the bill. She says it would give people the freedom to choose how they die.

FENNER: Because death is inevitable for all of us. We are going to die.

If passed, the bill will allow people over the age of 18 to request assisted suicide, with strict conditions. They must have only six months left to live, and two doctors must approve them for the procedure. They also must face a panel; including a psychiatrist, a senior legal figure, and a social worker.

For Fenner and the bill’s supporters, assisted suicide is about choice. They call it “radical autonomy.”

ALITHEA WILLIAMS: They are saying, this is about autonomy. It's about people given a choice …

Alithea Williams is the Public Policy Manager at the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. She says the bill sets a dangerous precedent, and that “radical autonomy” bears close similarities to the pro-abortion phrase, “my body, my choice.”

WILLIAMS: And I suppose what I mean by radical is that it's not describing the world as it really exists.

Williams sympathizes with stories like Catie’s. But she believes the language of the bill won’t protect the most vulnerable, like low income families without access to good palliative care.

WILLIAMS: But you would think that this is a bill about preventing suffering at the end of life, which is a noble goal, even if we don't agree with the methods. But that's not actually what's in the bill.

Williams says ultimately, the bill serves to push “radical autonomy” rather than actually help people with terminal illnesses.

WILLIAMS: The bill doesn't have any mention of suffering. It doesn't have any mention of pain, it's just about autonomy. Which doesn't really work, because if it's about autonomy, then why six months? Why any restriction at all?

The bill has widespread support from the public, with one recent poll finding that 75% of respondents support the legislation. Still, it faces strong opposition from members of Britain’s upper chamber.

NIGEL BIGGAR: It is a mess …

Nigel Biggar is a member of the House of Lords. He’s also a former Christian ethicist at Oxford University. Biggar is a vocal critic of the bill, and anticipates that it could turn families against each other.

BIGGAR: I fear that once assisted suicide becomes available on the principle of radical autonomy, teenagers could choose assisted suicide in defiance of their parents. We end up with a society that becomes indifferent to choices.

Biggar fears the bill will corrode social norms, destroying an already unstable public understanding of what it means to be human.

BIGGAR: I think the result, long term, cultural result, is gradually devaluing of the lives of afflicted human beings and increasing carelessness about it. And people who who cling on to their lives in adverse circumstances and require the help of other people, then become regarded as burdens. And that seems to me to be a more inhumane society, and I don't want it.

Assisted dying for terminally ill people is already legal in 9 other European countries. It’s also legal in Canada, and 12 U.S. states.

Margaret Adams is a Christian Ethicist at the University of Oxford’s St. Stephen’s House. She disagrees with the premise of the bill, but sees it as an opportunity for Christians to offer a better vision of end of life care. One that discourages people from assisted suicide.

MARGARET ADAMS: The primary reason for people wanting to pursue something like assisted dying is not present pain and suffering, but fear of pain and suffering. And I think fear is something we can work with, which is not to say that fears might be wrong, but there are definite ways to care for and be present with people who are afraid.

The House of Lords will sit for 9 more debates to address the record number of proposed amendments from opponents. If the Lords can’t reach a resolution by the end of the Parliamentary session in the spring, the bill will fail. If that happens, Adams says the discussion likely won’t end there.

ADAMS: It's a recognizable idea to most people, that is possible, or should be possible, to be able to have control over choice about how you die. So if this bill doesn't pass, another one will before too long.

… leaving more opportunities for Christians to advance conversations about end of life care in the future.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Claire Wilkerson in Oxford.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.