rationalskepticism.org

Ian Tattum wrote:And even their doubts about euthanasia have found them making common cause with disabled rights activists, who are otherwise about as likely to have encouragent as sufferers from mental illness.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

It seems that every time someone who considers their own life not worth living asks for help ending it, some rentagob pops up claiming it'll be the thin end of the wedge on the road to the mass murder of disabled people.

Thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments are typically bogus, relying as they do on the logic that to do something which in itself seems justifiable could be 'wrong' because if the process taken to get from where we are now to the suggested new state was taken far further to a complete extreme with no control at all, the end result would be bad.
That logic effectively suggests that there's something magically stable about where we currently are, and that people can't be trusted to set limits anywhere else, whereas in reality most of the positions that a society takes are some kind of compromise, relying on legal limits to define what is and isn't allowed rather than some anything goes free-for-all situation, but where the positions do change over time without hurtling off to horrifying extremes every time anything changes.

Working on thin-end-of-the-wedge logic, almost nothing could ever be changed in any direction since the risk of a potential worst-case situation resulting would be too great.

Though it's one of those positions virtually impossible to prove wrong.
If someone bangs on about assisted dying being on the road to some kind of 'life unworthy of life' policy and things do change a little to allow assisted dying with tight controls but the sky doesn't fall as a result, the campaigner will congratulate themselves on how their campaigning stopped people going too far, they way they inevitably would have done without the campaigning happening.
Be it no change, small change, or extreme change, the thin-end-of-the-wedger can either pat themselves on the back for having averted disaster, or pat themselves on the back for being proved right.

And as for the bishops, some might have some meaningful insights as a result of their life experience, as might any number of of other people.
If so, let the bishops, (depending on the system we end up with), convince either the government or the people of their personal usefulness, and either be appointed for a term as individuals or stand for election as individuals, rather than having some automatic right to have a permanent seat on the basis of nothing more than how far they managed to get up a religious management structure.