Dear Archbishop Welby,

While I fully appreciate your concerns regarding the moral and societal implications of legalising assisted dying, I believe your argument risks creating a false dichotomy between palliative care and the right to die with dignity. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive but can work in tandem to respect the autonomy and wishes of terminally ill patients who seek to exercise control over their final days.

You present palliative care as a compassionate, holistic alternative to assisted dying, suggesting that changing the law would devalue life and exert undue pressure on vulnerable individuals. However, this framing neglects the experiences of many terminally ill patients who, even after receiving the best palliative care, continue to endure profound suffering. For these individuals, the ability to choose an assisted death is not a rejection of life’s value but an affirmation of their dignity and personal agency. Compassion must extend to respecting their right to make this choice.

While your concern about potential coercion is understandable, robust safeguards can and do prevent the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. In jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, strict protocols ensure that only those who meet specific criteria—such as being of sound mind and terminally ill—can proceed with this option. These safeguards can help avoid the “slippery slope” scenario you fear while upholding patient autonomy.

Your portrayal of assisted dying as an attempt to “tidy up” the complexities of terminal illness oversimplifies the matter. Legalising assisted dying does not force a neat resolution to these difficult situations; rather, it offers one more choice to patients who find that even the best palliative care cannot alleviate their suffering. This is not about imposing death as a solution but about ensuring that those in unrelievable pain are empowered to make their own decision.

Most importantly, this is a decision that ought to remain between the patient and their doctor, not subject to external moral judgments that do not reflect the patient’s personal circumstances. By opposing assisted dying on religious or moral grounds, we risk imposing views that may not align with the patient’s own values and desires, thus undermining their autonomy at the most vulnerable point in their life.

Rather than devaluing life, allowing assisted dying respects the dignity, autonomy, and well-being of individuals. In providing this option, under strict regulations, we affirm that those in terminal distress have the right to control their own fate without fear of interference or judgment.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Matthew Jackson