Expert and personal testimony at Mosaic assisted dying debate
The Assisted Dying Bill was overwhelmingly supported at a debate held by Mosaic Jewish Community, with only two votes against and one abstention. The panel discussion, chaired by journalist and Mosaic member Steve Levinson, brought together a range of medical, ethical and religious perspectives.
Dr Debbie Alalouff, a GP of 30 years and campaigner for Project End of Life Care, spoke in favour of the Bill from a clinical standpoint. She emphasised that it offers “a choice which patients do not have at present”, between fully funded hospice care and an assisted dying service within the NHS, regulated by the General Medical Council and the Care Quality Commission and staffed by qualified professionals. She stressed the importance of patient trust and safeguarding: “No patient or doctor should feel that they have been coerced and can opt in or out of the service.”
Rabbi Anthony Lazarus opposed the Bill, approaching the debate from a Torah based perspective. He acknowledged that “Judaism is not a religion of life at any cost,” but was cautious about unintended consequences. He highlighted concerns over passive coercion and the emotional impact on disabled people, warning of “a slippery slope.” While recognising Jewish texts on dying, he said, “Assisted dying is forbidden in Torah. It is about prayer, not medical intervention,” pointing instead to double effect pain relief and Do Not Resuscitate decisions as more acceptable paths.
Rabbi Jonathan Romain, Chair of the Religious Alliance for Dignity in Dying, endorsed the Bill as a compassionate option. “There is no sanctity in suffering, with continued pain, suicide, or a costly trip to Switzerland among limited choices.” Drawing parallels to Oregon, the first US state to legalise assisted dying 25 years ago, he stressed the effectiveness of safeguards and the protective measures afforded to patients. He added: “Of people who had registered for Assisted Dying, only 30% used it. They have the ultimate choice with free will.”
Closing reflections from the panel showed some common ground. Steve Levinson questioned whether the Bill risked “death on demand.” Dr Debbie Alalouff insisted that “choices have to be made, and the service must have safeguards.” Anthony Lazarus conceded the Bill “could be transformative,” while Rabbi Jonathan summed up its core values: “care, compassion and choice.”
The audience engagement was strong, with many shared personal stories. And the final verdict endorsed the earlier landslide vote.
