Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon Opposes the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords

 

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon Opposes

The Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords

 Dr Mozammel Haque

Cross Bench Life Peer Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon opposed the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords on 22 October 2021. He said, “True compassion not only makes life meaningful for both giver and recipient but, importantly, also nudges society as a whole in a more positive ethical direction. It is for these reasons that I oppose the Bill.”

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon, said, “My Lords, today we live in an increasingly selfish and uncaring society, in which euphemisms such as “assisted dying” for “assisted suicide” and, unbelievably, “compassion” have all been used to justify a Bill that I believe demeans society and pressurises the vulnerable to take their own lives.”

Lord Indarjit Singh said, “The moral slide ahead is clearly visible. In the Netherlands, assisted death is routinely extended to include the disabled, those with chronic, non-terminal conditions and those with mental health problems such as dementia and depression. The suffering of the vulnerable is made worse by those close, making it obvious that their care is an unwanted chore, particularly by some who stand to inherit property or assets. That was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who has shown years of loving care and compassion to his injured and disabled wife. During the debate on the 2013 Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that legislating for assisted suicide “creates too much financial incentive for the taking of life.”—[Official Report, 18/7/14; col. 789.]

Such pressures are difficult to pick up by doctors and judges.

Lord Indarjit Singh mentioned, “We are all aware of the problem of climate change, but much less aware of a deteriorating moral climate—a growing selfishness seen in daily news of violence against the weak and vulnerable.”

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon said, “Assisting in the killing of our fellow human beings has been condemned by leaders of all our major faiths, including, as we have heard, the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Statistics remind us that it is not physical pain but a feeling of being unwanted and a burden on others that leads to mental suffering and a wish to die. We have heard conflicting stories about the different views of religions. In the story of the good Samaritan, Jesus Christ reminds us of our common responsibility to help in alleviating the suffering of our fellow beings. In Sikhism, the young Guru Nanak spent money given by his father for investment on food for the starving. Loving care for others, even to the enemy in battle, is central to Sikh teaching.

Lord Indarjit Singh of Wimbledon concluded, “Finally, I mention the misuse of the word compassion —unbelievably, used to advance the Bill. The literal meaning of “compassion” is to show in loving care that we understand and share in another’s suffering. True compassion not only makes life meaningful for both giver and recipient but, importantly, also nudges society as a whole in a more positive ethical direction. It is for these reasons that I oppose the Bill.”