Faith-based providers may be forced to facilitate assisted suicides
Christians and disability advocates are speaking out against a U.K. government impact assessment that claims the legalization of assisted suicide for the terminally ill could save the U.K.’s National Health Service up to $79 million (£59.6 million) annually.
Groups opposed to assisted suicide say the report ignores the increased vulnerability of individuals with mental health conditions or disabilities, and focuses on killing instead of care.
The analysis predicts between 1,042 to 4,559 assisted deaths each year within a decade of the proposed legislation taking effect, The Christian Institute said in a statement, expressing ethical concerns.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
The assessment, commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care, examined the financial implications of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, introduced by MP Kim Leadbeater.
It found that reducing life expectancy by several months through assisted suicide would lower costs related to ambulance services, hospital admissions, outpatient visits, GP appointments, hospice care and medications.
The estimated savings are based on the assumption that assisted death occurs two months into what would otherwise be a six-month terminal illness, eliminating up to four months of healthcare costs per patient.
The government’s 149-page report cites a per-person healthcare cost of $22,000 (£16,500) in the final six months of life, with 34% of that incurred in the last month. If assisted deaths shorten life by four months, the NHS could avoid nearly 80% of those expenditures per patient, according to the analysis.
The report suggests financial relief could extend to reduced social care costs and lower spending on pensions and benefits.
The figures are part of the cost-benefit projections that remain highly uncertain. The word “uncertain” appears 36 times in the report, and key metrics, such as the net cost or benefit of the bill, are marked as “not applicable” due to incomplete data.
The report’s authors acknowledge that major aspects of implementation remain undefined and would need to be addressed in future secondary legislation.
The projections rely on comparisons with Oregon and Canada, where assisted suicide is already legal.
The report also identifies significant logistical and ethical challenges. One is the projected shortage of willing medical professionals.
Opponents of the bill argue that the focus on financial savings risks shifting priorities from care to cost-cutting, with dangerous implications for vulnerable people.
Ciarán Kelly, director of The Christian Institute, said the bill would divert money “from care into killing.” He stated that debate time would be better spent on strengthening palliative services.
Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, a former Paralympian and disability rights advocate, said the government’s assessment shows how the bill would expose disabled and vulnerable people to grave risk by creating financial incentives for an overstretched NHS to view assisted dying as a viable “treatment option,” as cited by The Christian Institute.
She warned that such incentives could lead to subtle or direct pressure on individuals who already feel burdensome.
Legal experts have also raised serious concerns about the bill’s compatibility with human rights protections.
Barristers Tom Cross K.C. and Ruth Kennedy argue that the bill fails to include adequate safeguards for individuals with disabilities, particularly those prone to suicidal ideation. They write that this failure “is in breach of the ECHR,” because it does not account for the specific vulnerabilities of certain individuals when applying the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The government’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges that disabled people might be more susceptible to feelings of burden, even in the absence of external pressure, due to “attitudinal barriers or a lack of alternative appropriate services and support.”
The bill does not mandate additional protections for these individuals, nor does it exclude people with mental health conditions from seeking assisted suicide.
The report also confirms that pregnant individuals who meet the eligibility criteria would not be excluded from accessing assisted death.
Family members and unpaid carers would not have any guaranteed role in the application process, and the bill contains no provision requiring that they be informed.
The government states that notification following a death would be adequately handled through existing certification procedures, including the requirement to list “assisted death” as the cause.
Concerns also extend to institutional conscience protections. While individual doctors and nurses may opt out, there are no such rights for institutions like hospices or care homes. This means faith-based or morally opposed providers could be forced to facilitate assisted suicides on their premises.
Critics argue that this amounts to coercion and undermines religious freedom.
The practical feasibility of the bill has also been questioned due to anticipated staff shortages.
According to the government’s own figures, 76% of palliative care professionals said they would not participate in assisted suicides, with another 14% undecided — resulting in a possible 90% refusal rate in the field most relevant to end-of-life care, noted the group Christian Concern. Across all specializations, only 35% of healthcare professionals indicated willingness to be involved.
Actress and disability rights campaigner Liz Carr has spoken out firmly against the legalisation of assisted suicide, warning that it poses serious risks to disabled people.
In the BBC documentary “Better Off Dead?,” she presented testimonies from disabled individuals who had been told by others that they would be “better off dead.”
Carr pointed to Canada’s experience, where the law initially limited assisted suicide to terminal cases but later expanded to include those facing unbearable suffering, including people struggling with poverty or mental illness. She has expressed concern that similar legal changes in the U.K. could lead to vulnerable people choosing death due to lack of adequate support, not because of genuine personal choice.
The bill is scheduled for a second reading and possible final vote in the House of Commons on Friday.
