With both sides of the political ideological spectrum still bitterly divided over The Assisted Dying Bill, tensions and nervousness have certainly begun to increase considering the progress of the bill.
Having crossed its first hurdle, the Assisted Dying Bill has passed through the House of Commons and now resides in the fate of the Lords.
Last week, in the House of Lords the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill took place. Spanning over the course of two full days, Peers came together to scrutinise the bill and share their thoughts.
This bill is simply not a matter of political ideology, it is one that reflects a deep personal stance to all who engage with it. One’s beliefs on the bill are influenced by cultural, religious, and moral factors. If the bill successfully makes it through the House of Lords, it will usher one of the greatest social changes Modern Britain has ever seen in the 21st Century.
For us British Hindus, this bill presents something profoundly difficult to comprehend. The complexities of the bill make it particularly challenging to come to a steadfast decision. For me, my culture and faith guide me in everything I do and part of this is believing that one must not disturb the timing of the cycle of life and death. An ideal death in our faith is a conscious one. Which means the bill interferes with one’s ability to pass in this desired way.
The intricacy of the bill means it becomes intertwined with personal experiences, faith, and religion. All of which are influencing factors into which side of the fence we sit on. I do believe we should all pay our duties and that our soul and body should go at a time that is natural. Yet it would be selfish of me to assume that this is the path every individual would choose, particularly in moments of overwhelming physical suffering. Ultimately, one can only make such a choice when they find themselves confronted with it.
Throughout my many years as a Member of the House of Lords, I must say the lobbying around this bill – whether in support or opposition, has been excessive. It simply portrays the deep philosophical and moral passions members of our community and wider society hold.
The voices in the chamber last Friday carried far more than the usual conversations in Westminster. For each Peer I sensed in the chamber how truly passionate each one felt. Our former Prime Minister, The RT Hon. The Baroness May of Maidenhead opposed the bill and described it as ‘a license to kill’. In addition, My Noble friend, The Right Honourable Lord Polak spoke out to say that over 20 years ago he was given 6 months to live. Providing the foundational basis for his opposition to the bill.
Prevalent concerns throughout the debate included how the bill would operate in practice, particularly in relation to how the most vulnerable in society would be affected. It is already known that towards the end of life many individuals face the deeply human and spiritual challenge of loneliness. Thus, the question remains of how the legislation would be facilitated towards this problem.
Whatever belief we may hold, it is crucial we pay close attention to the debate surrounding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Engaging with arguments from both perspectives allows us to sharpen our judgement and critical thinking skills. To form conclusions that are informed and grounded in principle.
