Conscience issues about Assisted Dying

  • The Assisted Dying Debate

Notes of an online seminar by the Bios Centre for Interdisiplinary Ethical Research November 3 2026.

  1. Medicine is expanding and with it its moral frontiers. A law about conscience 60 years ago cannot cover all the issues raised by medicine today. The possibility and legality of a procedure does not make it morally right. Professional judgement includes a judgement about ends.
  1. We live in a pluralistic society in which people have different and divisive views on ethical values. Such pluralism requires moral dissent to be acknowledged and legitimate. The civil law must give space for non-cooperation. The Jersey Bill on AD gives space for not having to give information about AD, not having to administer AD drugs and for a csre home not to have to provide for AD
  1. The European Convention on human rights gives absolute status to the rights of conscience. Someone’s conscience on a matter has absolute priority.

Further, the removal of or fallure to affirm the right of conscience is in fact a process of normalizing the behaviour in question so that it can never be disagreed with. This removes the matter from any moral consideration and imposes a state dictatorship.

  1. Placing AD in health care first of all would define it as a medical treatment, and therefore rule out any conscientious disagreement. Medical staff would be required by law and their contracts to provide it, whatever their personal views. Secondly, AD does not require a doctor to carry it out. Anyone can find a vein to inject with poison. Thirdly it would make AD free. Fourthly, it would make AD an entirely bureaucratic process removed from any moral considerations.

We therefore need to ensure that any proposed AD is NOT treated as part of health care. It is not necessary for the health of the patient. It is an elected procedure of choice, not a medical intervention to prevent harm or save life. As an elective procedure it is therefore open to public debate and a counsellor has a right to refuse it. It is not a private matter between a counsellor and client into which no one else has a right to be involved. Therefore it must be insisted that any AD is outside the NHS and not part of health care, as it is not in Switzerland where priests have been kicked out and doctors called in to bless suicide.

  1. “My body, my choice” is not a helpful slogan. People do not live as isolated individuals. Their choices are related to other people in society. Other people are necessarily involved in the choices that someone makes and their consequences. One thing other people in society have to do is protect each other from harm.
  1. The issue of conscience about an elective procedure raises the question of implicit involvement. If someone were to ask for assisted dying, and the person consulted said “ I do not approve, so you need to talk with Dr X”, does that constitute involvement? Do they do best to refuse to discuss the matter and leave it at that so that they do not get implicitly involved?
  1. We must learn from the mistakes of others. In Canada where AD was made lawful, no one realized that it would lead in effect to death on demand and the neglect of palliative care.
  1. Lethal injection is not the kindest way to end life. The Guillotine was the best, as it severed the nerves in the neck.
  1. It would seem clear that the issue will not come before Parliament before the next election. The defeat of the private member’s bills here has encouraged people around the world.
  1. Death has now been medicalised. People used to die without medical assistance. Now it is thought you need medical assistance to die. Assisting in someone’s death is illegal because you are taking part in someone else ending their own life. Suicide is wrong and a sin, but legal.
  1. The Bios website gives a toolkit on conscientious objection https://bioscentre.org/conscientious-objection-toolkit/