But he believed that “the granting of a right to end one’s own life, would simultaneously impose a new and immeasurable pressure upon terminal patients who are already extremely vulnerable.”
“Once the law itself concedes that actively taking a person’s life is justifiable, we cross a moral Rubicon”
He warned that in some other countries where similar legislation had been introduced, it did not take long before “it became legal to end the lives of children who are too young to fully comprehend what is happening to them.
“It is hard to hear that and not to conclude that the line between dying and killing is becoming blurred. I know how much has been invested in attempts to build protections into the Bill against this ‘slippery slope’.
“But developments in other countries show that once the law itself concedes that actively taking a person’s life is justifiable, we cross a moral Rubicon…”
He also feared that it was “not inconceivable that, in the course of time, financial and capacity constraints within the health system could become relevant considerations, thus turning life into a commodity like any other.”
The burden that the Bill would place on “our most vulnerable patients, on their families and on medical staff, as well as the profound effect on the conscience of those left behind, is surely too high a price to pay”.
Directly addressing MPs, he wrote: "My appeal to you is on behalf of those whose stories will never be heard – those who would never let it be known, that if not for the emotional or financial burden they felt they had become, they might just choose life.”
His intervention follows a letter signed by 29 Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian leaders which was published at the weekend, warning of the Bill’s risks. The signatories included Senior Rabbi of the S & P Community, Joseph Dweck, Masorti Judaism Senior Rabbi, Jonathan Wittenberg, and the chair of the United Synagogue’s Rabbinical Council. Rabbi Pinchas Hackenbroch.
They expressed deep concern over the impact of the Bill on the “most vulnerable”, arguing that “even when surrounded by loving family and friends, people towards the end of their life can still feel like a burden”.
They were “convinced that the current law provides much greater security for those who are vulnerable than the Bill before Parliament… The most effective safeguard against life-threatening coercion or abuse is to keep the law as it is.”
Instead, they argued that “a truly compassionate response to the end of life lies in the provision of high-quality palliative care services to all who need them”.
Rabbi Charley Baginsky and Rabbi Josh Levy, co-leads of Progressive Judaism (photo: Progressive Judaism)[Missing Credit]
But in a statement today, the chief executives of Progressive Judaism, Rabbis Charley Baginsky and Josh Levy, explain why they have not taken a stand on the Bill in view of the diversity of opinion within their movements’ ranks.
Some Reform and Liberal rabbis “emphasise the Jewish teaching that life is a gift from God, sacred and inviolable and that any deliberate ending of life risks transgressing this divine trust,” they said.
“Others draw on equally compelling Jewish values, such as compassion for those who are suffering and the primacy of human dignity.
“There are also those who do not oppose assisted dying in principle, but have specific concerns about its implementation, or whether this can be introduced at a time of crisis in our public services, including in social and palliative care.”
The diversity of opinion was “why we, as co-leads of Progressive Judaism, have chosen not to sign the open letter released by other faith leaders opposing changes to end-of-life laws. We have also chosen not to sign letters, when asked, in favour of a change.”
While respecting “the conviction of those who sign, and campaign, on both sides of this debate. we believe it is essential to acknowledge the nuance and complexity,” they said.
“Any attempt to present a singular religious perspective risks misrepresenting the diversity of thought within Judaism and silencing important voices.”
