Authority over death belongs to God alone, Church of England leader warns
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill cleared the House of Commons last month in a historic vote, bringing assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales.
It has now moved to the House of Lords where it will undergo further debate and scrutiny.
In the immediate aftermath of the June vote, Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, who sits in the House of Lords, said peers 'must oppose' the Bill when it reaches them due to the 'mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe'.
She is among those opposed who have called for more work to improve funding and access to 'desperately needed' palliative care services instead.
Bishop of London Sarah Mullally said peers 'must oppose' the Bill when it reaches them (PA)
Addressing the Church of England General Synod – also known as the Church's parliament – on Friday, Mr Cottrell voiced his staunch opposition to the Bill.
He said there was a 'compelling narrative of what it means to be human – and in all our glorious diversity, made in the image of God, and living Jesus-shaped lives – that will enable us to withstand, and even turn back, those utilitarian tides of opinion that risk making, for instance, assisted dying a reality in our national life, changing forever the contract between doctor and patient, pressurising the vulnerable, and assuming an authority over death that belongs to God alone'.
Mr Cottrell – who is the temporary leading religious voice of the Church while the appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury is awaited – thanked Dame Sarah and 'other Lords Spiritual for their principled and persistent opposition to the assisted dying Bill in Parliament'.
It is expected Synod members will engage in a debate on assisted dying during this five-day session.
Making the case for assisted dying ahead of last month's vote, a terminally ill Christian preacher criticised the 'nonsensical' religious argument against assisted dying that suffering must be part of life.
Church of England lay preacher Pamela Fisher, who is terminally ill with cancer, made an impassioned speech against the religious arguments made by some who oppose assisted dying.
Pamela Fisher, a Church of England lay preacher, has argued in favour of assisted dying (Jonathan Brady/PA)
Speaking to reporters in June, she said: 'I completely reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires terminally ill people to undergo a distressing and painful death against their will.
'I disagree with those that say it is God alone who decides how and when we die.
'Yes, life is a gift from God to be honoured but it's nonsensical to say that assisted dying is wrong because suffering is part of God's plan for us.'
The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Elsewhere in his opening address to Synod, Mr Cottrell acknowledged, in an apparent reference to controversy around the handling of abuse scandals over the years, that the Church of England had been 'humbled' of late.
He said: 'God has humbled us in so many ways this year.
'It has not been easy, but if it has made us more penitent, more determined to put victims and survivors first, more resolved to sort out all sorts of things to do with clergy discipline and accountability, terms of service, independent safeguarding, and other things besides, then, Synod, God the Redeemer, who believes in his Church, is at work among us.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
7 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
First Minister disappointed to not attend Belfast Pride this year
It comes after the Belfast Pride organisers asked political parties to not attend the parade this year in an official capacity, after Stormont backed a ban on puberty blockers. The parade started in 1991 and over the last 30 years has grown to be the largest single parade in Northern Ireland. The theme for this year's event is No Going Back, as organisers said there must be 'no turning back from the advances made in visibility, legal protections and societal recognition'. Alliance MLA and Stormont Agriculture and Environment Minister Andrew Muir, who is gay, has said he will be attending the Pride parade in a personal capacity, describing it as an important event. First Minister Michelle O'Neill said she will mark Pride in her own way, and hopes to be able to return to Belfast Pride next year. 'For me, Pride has always been about love and friendship, about celebrating people's identity and promoting inclusivity, and I have always been an advocate for equality and human rights, so it does make me sad that they have taken the decision that they have taken,' she told the BBC. 'However, I will continue to work with the organisers, I'll continue to work with all the organisations out there that represent the whole LGBTQIA+ community, and I would say to them all that whilst they celebrate Pride on Saturday, I hope that next year I also will be celebrating Pride with them. 'I will do so this Saturday in my own way, and I'll send them all, all the members of the LGBTQIA+ community that I, as your First Minister, am your ally, I will continue to be your ally and Sinn Fein as my party will also continue to be an ally.' Meanwhile, earlier this week it was reported that the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Jayne Brady, was told they would be 'open to the charge of acting politically' by taking part in Belfast Pride. Ms O'Neill said she felt that as a major employer in Northern Ireland, the civil service should be represented, however TUV MLA Timothy Gaston said there was 'deep unease' among Christian civil servants. The First Minister said: 'We are an inclusive employer and I think it is absolutely appropriate that the head of that service should be there and walk in the celebration that is Pride on Saturday. 'We can't promote inclusivity and employ that many people, and not actually turn up on the day of celebration, so I commend that as the right approach to take. 'The civil service is an employer, and they're an employer of over 24,000 staff, many of those staff will be members of the LGBTQIA+ community so therefore, I think it is appropriate that the head of the civil service will be there and actually celebrate on Pride with many of the staff.' Mr Muir said: 'I came out just under 30 years ago and, at that time as a young gay man struggling with my sexuality, I was looking to my employer, and my employer was saying, 'we're going to take part in Pride, we're going to show our support for our fellow LGBTQIA+ employees'. 'I'd be thinking, 'that's somewhere I want to work, that's somewhere I want to feel included', and I think that is really, really good, and I want to commend the leadership of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Mr Gaston said he has written to Ms Brady to voice his concern after being contacted by Christian civil servants. 'Their concerns are not rooted in prejudice but in a principled belief that the Civil Service, as a publicly funded and supposedly apolitical body, should not be endorsing what is an overtly political and highly divisive campaign,' he said. 'Belfast Pride is not a neutral celebration. It is a platform for contentious political demands, including positions on gender ideology, family, education, and religious freedom, that are strongly contested. 'When the Civil Service appears to publicly align itself with such a movement, it sends a clear and troubling message: that one worldview is officially sanctioned, and others are to be marginalised or silenced. 'The Civil Service must be impartial, not just in its public actions but in the culture it cultivates within.'
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Tory peer apologises for helping set up ministerial meeting for firm he advises
A Conservative peer has apologised for breaking the House of Lords rules by helping to secure a meeting with a minister for a Canadian company he advises. Ian Duncan, a deputy speaker of the Lords, was found to have breached the rules by providing a parliamentary service for Terrestrial Energy when he facilitated an introduction between its chief executive and a new energy minister. His conduct had been reported to the House of Lords standards commissioner following the Guardian's months-long investigation examining the commercial interests of peers. As a result of the Lords debate series, four other peers are being investigated to establish whether they breached the house's code of conduct. A fifth peer, Iain McNicol, a former general secretary of the Labour party, was required to apologise in May for breaking the rules by writing to the Treasury to promote a cryptocurrency firm that was paying him. In a report published on Friday, the standards commissioner ruled that Lord Duncan of Springbank had broken the rules which forbid peers from seeking to profit from their membership of the upper chamber. The former junior climate minister has been an adviser to Terrestrial Energy since 2020. When he first joined, he was given share options, which allow him to buy shares in the company at a preferential rate if they become profitable. The Guardian revealed that, in 2023, Duncan forwarded a letter to Andrew Bowie, the nuclear minister at the time, from Simon Irish, the firm's chief executive who wanted a meeting with the minister at short notice. The peer signed off his email 'Lord D of S'. The chief executive of the company, which is developing a new type of nuclear reactor, secured the meeting with Bowie at which he lobbied for Terrestrial Energy to be given easier access to government funding. In his response to the watchdog, Duncan said Bowie was a 'friend of long standing' who had helped him get elected as a member of the European parliament in 2014 and had then worked in his Brussels office. Duncan argued: 'It was this personal relationship, and not my membership of the upper house, nor my government service, which led Mr Irish to ask whether there was a prospect (albeit limited) that a personal request might help land a meeting during his visit.' Margaret Obi, the Lords commissioner, decided that the rule prohibiting peers from providing 'parliamentary services in return for payment or other incentive or reward' was absolute. She added: 'It did not provide an exemption in cases where there was an existing personal relationship.' She ruled: 'Although Lord Duncan stated he was not paid specifically for facilitating this introduction, he received an allocation of share options as consideration for his work for Terrestrial Energy. 'I consider that this can reasonably be understood to have been an incentive or reward for the various tasks he undertook for the company.'
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
Religious freedom laws apply in drug injection site case, court says
CHICAGO, July 24 (Reuters) - An organization doesn't have to be founded with a religious purpose to claim protection under the country's laws governing the free exercise of religion, a U.S. appeals court said on Thursday in a ruling that applies the protections to nearly any group claiming to be practicing religion. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the decision in a dispute involving a Philadelphia non-profit that has sought to open a supervised drug-injection site in the city. The court gave Safehouse another chance to argue that it has a religious right to do its work after reversing a lower judge's ruling holding that Safehouse, which has said its work is informed by Judeo-Christian beliefs about the need to preserve life and care for the sick, is not protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Safehouse is fighting a long-running U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to bar it from opening the injection site. The 3rd Circuit panel sent the case back to the district court, directing it to reconsider Safehouse's claims after finding that it does qualify for the protection. Representatives for the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Ronda Goldfein, an attorney for Safehouse, called the decision "an important milestone for all community-based organizations that save lives by evidence-based, compassionate harm-reduction strategies." The fight between Safehouse and the federal government began in 2019, during Republican President Donald Trump's first administration. At the time, Safehouse was poised to open what would have been the first such safe-injection site in the country, where drug users under supervision by medically trained professionals could obtain clean syringes and inject themselves with heroin, fentanyl or other drugs. New York City instead in 2021 became the location of the first-safe injection sites, and the Justice Department has not pursued an action to close them. Safehouse has said it will open when it has legal permission. The Justice Department argued Safehouse's plans would violate the Controlled Substances Act by maintaining a place that would facilitate illegal drug use. U.S. District Judge Gerald McHugh rejected that argument in 2020, but the 3rd Circuit reversed it a year later, saying that while the U.S. opioid epidemic "may call for innovative solutions, local innovations may not break federal law." The case came back to the 3rd Circuit after McHugh dismissed Safehouse's claims that the threat of prosecution by the DOJ for violating federal drug laws was unconstitutionally chilling its ability to exercise its religious rights. McHugh said Safehouse's articles of incorporation and tax filings said nothing about any religious activity, and while its website mentioned a religious motivation, it did not describe any apparent religious practices or behavior in its activities. But whether Safehouse is a religious entity isn't the right question, the panel said. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark religious rights ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, laws protecting the free expression of religion can apply to any corporations that claim to exercise religion, the court said. The case is U.S. v. Safehouse, case number 24-2027 in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. For Safehouse: Ronda Goldfein and Adrian Lowe of the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, Ilana Eisenstein and Ben Fabens-Lassen of DLA Piper, Peter Goldberger of the Law Office of Peter Goldberger and Seth Kreimer of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law For the U.S.: Sarah Carroll and Lowell Sturgill, Jr. of the U.S. Department of Justice
