“THIS is a line our nation must not cross,” was the message from the General Synod, after it voted almost unanimously to condemn the Bill to legalise assisted dying which Parliament is currently considering.

The motion was carried, on Tuesday, by 238-7 with seven recorded abstentions. It was a late addition to the Synod agenda.

Introduced by the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, it called on the Government to boost funding for palliative care instead of enacting the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which achieved a narrow majority in the House of Commons last month (News, 27 June).

Bishop Mullally, the leads bishop on healthcare, has repeatedly spoken strongly against the Bill. Introducing the debate, she reiterated her opposition to both the principle of assisted suicide and the risks that, she said, this particular legislation posed to the vulnerable.

In the context of NHS funding for only 30 per cent of hospice, it was “unthinkable” that the State should choose to fund an assisted-suicide service, she said. “A Church whose hands are consecrated to bring life cannot support the prescription of life-ending drugs.”

Speaker after speaker rose to echo her concerns. Many warned that, if the Bill became law, it would lead the elderly and unwell to choose an assisted death out of fear that they were a “burden” to loved ones or the health service.

Others told stories of being with friends and relatives in their final days, and of the blessings found in these times.

The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, spoke movingly about holding the hand of his father — who would have qualified for an assisted death under the legislation — as he died a few months ago. Bishop North said that he realised afresh in those moments how “utterly wrong it would be to take away life, which is a gift from God. . . Undermining life in any context takes away something of its beauty and its mystery.”

The Revd Paul Cartwright (Leeds) told the Synod that he had been admitted to palliative care back in 2009 and might have been considered to have a “life not worth living”. Had he ended his life then, he would never have seen his children grow up.

The Bill would lead to a slippery slope, he warned: assisted dying would be extended from the terminally ill to the depressed and disabled. “This isn’t choice, it’s pressure; it’s not mercy, it’s abandonment.”

Several doctors on the Synod drew on their clinical experience to criticise the Bill’s provisions and safeguards, suggesting that it would usher vulnerable patients towards an early death rather than towards the support that they needed to live well in the time that they had left.

Others pointed to the theological value of dependence, and urged the Church to resist a culture that saw being a burden on others as “intolerable”.

Fiona MacMillan (London) spoke about Canada, which had swiftly jettisoned any requirement to be terminally ill, and where disabled people were regularly offered assisted suicide rather than funding for supported living.

There were a handful of contrary voices, including Philip Baldwin (London), who argued that helping those who suffered to die well was “loving, kind, and compassionate”, and thoroughly Christian. Alan Dowen (Chester) agreed. He said: “When my father was approaching his own end of life, it always concerned me that, in law, he was allowed to show more love and compassion for his dog than he was for himself.” Giving people permission to end their own suffering was an act of love; “so can it really be contrary to God’s law?” he asked.

In her summing up, the Bishop pledged to work with the other Lords Spiritual to engage deeply with the Bill in the House of Lords, where it was introduced last month after passing through the Commons.

The full motion reads: “That this Synod, in light of recent debates on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, reaffirm that every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and request His Majesty’s Government work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services instead of enacting a law that puts the most vulnerable at risk.”