Ahead of a historic Commons vote on assisted dying, the Justice Secretary has warned that the UK is heading down a "slippery slope towards death on demand,". In a letter to her constituents, Shabana Mahmood expressed her deep concerns about the proposed legislation.
"Recent scandals—such as Hillsborough, infected blood, and the Post Office Horizon case—have shown us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always infallible," she wrote. "For this reason, I have always believed that the state's role should be clear: it should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service."
On 29 November, MPs will vote on whether to legalise assisted dying, as proposed in Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The legislation confirms that the medication to end a patient's life would need to be self-administered, and that individuals must be terminally ill with a prognosis of six months or less to live.
However, Mahmood questioned the accuracy of life expectancy predictions. "Doctors can only predict a date of death with certainty in the final days of life," she said. "Thus, the decision on who qualifies for assisted suicide will inevitably be subjective and imprecise."
In response to this intervention by Mahmood, Labour peer and ally of Keir Starmer, Charlie Falconer, stated that the Justice Secretary’s opposition to assisted dying was rooted in “religious and spiritual reasons.” He added that cabinet ministers should not impose their personal religious beliefs on others when voicing objections to assisted dying. Many
However, this debate touches upon the diverse perspectives within British Asian communities, where various faiths hold differing views on assisted dying and these views should be considered. Whether or not the bill comes into action, there needs to be sensitive discussions and tailored approaches that respect cultural and spiritual values while addressing the moral and ethical complexities of end-of-life decisions.
Faith leaders unite against assisted dying
A coalition of 29 faith leaders has united to oppose assisted dying in the largest religious intervention on the issue to date. Senior figures representing Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Sikhism have raised concerns that the proposed assisted dying Bill could lead to vulnerable individuals feeling pressured to end their lives in order to avoid being a burden on their families or the NHS. They warn that a "right to die" could easily evolve into a "duty to die."
In an open letter signed by prominent leaders, including the Bishop of London, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and the Chief Rabbi, the group expresses deep concern about the potential impact of the Bill on society's most vulnerable members. They argue that it could lead to life-threatening abuse and coercion. The letter highlights that an estimated 2.7 million older people in the UK are already victims of abuse, and many could be at risk of being pressured into prematurely ending their lives.
The letter further emphasises that even individuals surrounded by loving family and friends may feel like a burden toward the end of their lives, especially in a system where adult social care remains underfunded. In such an environment, they argue, the “right to die” could easily shift into a “duty to die.”
The open letter, co-signed by senior representatives from the UK’s five major faiths as well as Buddhist, Zoroastrian, and Jain leaders, argues that the current law offers much greater security for vulnerable individuals.
Among the signatories are Anil Bhanot, managing trustee of the Hindu Council UK; Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, spiritual leader and chair of the Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha; Trupti Patel, president of the Hindu Forum of Britain; Mehool Sanghrajka, chair of the Institute of Jainology; and Lord Singh of Wimbledon, director of the Network of Sikh Organisations UK, all of whom oppose the proposed legislation.
A few weeks ago, Anil Bhanot, the Managing Trustee of Hindu Council UK, shared his concerns with Asian Voice regarding the growing trend of assisted dying legislation. He cited the example of Canada, where the laws have become so permissive—referred to as a "slippery slope"—that assisted dying can be accessed with just one independent witness, who could even be the clinic’s receptionist. Bhanot described this as an unimaginably horrific scenario, where individuals could easily walk into a clinic and end their lives.
He expressed concern that what was originally intended for those suffering unbearable pain from terminal illness has increasingly morphed into a form of euthanasia, which, in Hinduism, is viewed as a cowardly and sinful act. Bhanot emphasised that, in Hindu philosophy, the right to life always takes precedence over the right to die, even in the face of suffering. He explained that pain and illness are often seen as part of one’s karma, and enduring these hardships can lead to a more hopeful outcome.
While acknowledging that there may be cases where terminal illness and extreme pain could exhaust one's karma, Bhanot argued that a soul should only be released from the body after all palliative care options have been exhausted.
He also commented on the Assisted Dying Bill, which includes safeguards such as two independent medical assessments and court approval. However, Bhanot suggested that an additional evaluation by the palliative care team should be required as well. He further questioned the bill's wording, arguing that it should be more specific. "If this bill is about the terminally ill," he said, "why not call it the 'Terminally Ill Legislation' rather than a broader 'Assisted Dying Legislation' that gives people the choice to end their lives?"
Disability campaigners and advocates for women in abusive relationships also warn of the unintended consequences of legalising assisted dying.
In a statement representing the Hindu community to Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Trupti Patel, President of the Hindu Forum of Britain, highlighted key values of the Hindu faith, asserting that "from a Hindu perspective, it is inappropriate to support assisted dying for anyone. Additionally, asking someone to help them end their life is not supported by Hindu teachings."
Patel emphasised that assisted dying contradicts the core Hindu principle of ahimsa (non-violence), a value that Hindus uphold in all aspects of life. "Committing violence or causing harm to end someone’s life, whether for personal reasons or external pressures, is against Hindu beliefs," she said.
She further clarified that assisted dying is distinct from end-of-life care, where individuals receive support to manage symptoms in the final stages of life when medical treatments are no longer effective. "End-of-life care aims to alleviate suffering and improve the quality of life when curative treatment is no longer possible," Patel explained. "Assisted dying, on the other hand, involves actively facilitating the ending of a person’s life, which cannot be equated to care."
She affirmed that while death is inevitable, aiding or encouraging someone to die contradicts the fundamental values of Hinduism.
A comment by Shaykh Abdul Qayum, Chief Imam of the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre shared a clear and unambiguous perspective on end-of-life issues, emphasising Islam's teachings on human suffering and the sanctity of life, stated, “The proposed bill is being presented as a way to help those suffering at the end of their lives. However, this contradicts Islamic principles regarding the sanctity of life and the purpose of hardship. The Qur’an teaches us that 'every soul will taste death' and that we are tested 'with evil and with good as a trial.'”
He expressed concern about the potential societal impact of the Assisted Dying Bill, particularly on vulnerable groups. “What worries me is how this law could alter the way society treats vulnerable people, especially the elderly, disabled, or those who are poor. They may feel pressured into choosing assisted dying, mistakenly believing they are a burden on their families. This contradicts the Islamic principle of caring for one another, particularly for the elderly, poor, and most vulnerable in our community.”
Shaykh Qayum emphasised that the focus should be on improving palliative care, mental health support, and community services rather than legalising assisted dying. “Islamic teachings guide us on how to treat the sick and those in their final days with dignity. We do this by offering comfort, supporting their families, and ensuring they receive the best possible care until their natural end, preserving their dignity throughout.”
Many faith and community leaders declined to comment when approached by Asian Voice.
Aspects beyond moral consideration need to be addressed
Critics of the bill raise concerns about the sanctity of life, fearing it could set a dangerous precedent that normalises untimely death. There is also apprehension that the passage of an assisted dying bill might divert resources and attention away from end-of-life comfort measures, such as palliative care. If assisted dying becomes more accepted, the focus could shift away from improving treatments and medications to enhance quality of life, in favour of simply ending life.
In addition to these moral concerns, there are practical implications to consider. The already overloaded justice system would likely face additional strain, and it’s unclear how crematoriums, which are already operating at capacity, would handle the increased demand. Furthermore, questions arise about how wills and probate would be affected in the event that the bill is passed, adding another layer of complexity to an already delicate process.
Former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has raised concerns about the potential impact of assisted dying legislation on the court system, particularly family courts. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he warned that “no one has grappled with the details” of how the legislation will affect court proceedings.
Lord Thomas explained, “The one really difficult question that hasn’t been addressed is how the judge is to proceed. This cannot be a rubber-stamping exercise. There has to be a process where evidence is presented before the judge, and the judge will need assistance—either from the official solicitor or another body to bring the evidence forward.”
He added, “It is not possible to assess from the bill what the full impact of this will be.” According to Lord Thomas, the judicial process is a vital element in determining how the legislation should be implemented. He emphasised, “No one has tackled the detail. And because it’s such a fundamental part of the bill, you can’t just say, ‘This will be sorted out later.’ It needs to be addressed now.”
Public opinion indicates strong support for changing the law, with a recent YouGov poll revealing that 73% of Britons are in favour of allowing assisted dying in principle. Campaigning continues on both sides, marking the first public indication of MPs' support for the proposed legislation.
South Asian MP lends support to the bill
Many supporters believe the growing public support for assisted dying will be reflected in Parliament, especially among the influx of new Labour MPs.
Dr Jeevun Sandher, MP for Loughborough, is a prominent advocate, offering both public support and making the case to his colleagues for backing the bill introduced by Kim Leadbeater. He explained, "Every day, 70 people die in this country for whom palliative care isn't enough. They've built a tolerance to opioids, or they're allergic to them. You can't simply keep administering morphine.
"For those nearing the end of their life, the choice is clear to me. We should be focused on alleviating their suffering in a safe, responsible way, which is exactly what Kim’s bill does."
Dr Sandher added, "Some will choose to end their life, and others will not. Both are perfectly valid. But what we're talking about here are the final six months—it's about shortening some truly painful deaths."
He is a co-sponsor of Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill.
