The imprudence of Dame Prue
Dame Prue Leith is spreading errors about assisted suicide
As we, at long last, descend from the zenith of Twee Britannia following the apotheosis of David Attenborough at his Royal Albert Hall 100th birthday celebrations, it may be right to highlight two of the more understated, yet harmful, cultural phenomena in contemporary Britain: that of the National Treasure, and that of the celebrity political commentator.
There are few people who sit prim at the very centre of this insufferable Venn diagram as much as Dame Prue Leith, the Michelin-starred restaurateur turned celebrity cooking show judge. Leith may be most notable to the populace as a judge on The Great British Bake Off — a role in which she replaced the esteemed Dame Mary Berry, and which she stood down from in January of this year. As I have never actually watched The Great British Bake Off, my sole experience of Dame Prue comes from one of her other, less palatable, ventures.
Leith is a patron of the assisted suicide lobby group Dignity in Dying, and, in recent months, has tried her hand at writing opinion pieces aimed to encourage the support of the National Health Service helping people kill themselves. The trouble is that, for all her many talents (which I have to infer must exist), Leith does seem to be grimly ignorant of what constitutes fact with regard to the topics she writes about.
Join Britain’s most civilised publication.
Challenge the consensus. Access rigorous analysis.
In one example, in an article for The Oldie in March, Leith seemed to lay the blame for the failure of the assisted suicide Bill at the feet of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dame Sarah Mullally. “I’m glad to say the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, has been shamed into withdrawing 200 of her proposed amendments but it isn’t enough,” she wrote to a surely enraptured audience. “Why does the Archbishop, with a shrinking congregation, not support a measure that her flock overwhelmingly wants to see passed into law? Maybe she takes her instructions from the African Anglicans,” she added.
A convincing argument, I’m sure. Surely the primate of the Church of England should not deploy such power over British legislative affairs, you might think (though I couldn’t possibly comment). The problem is that this is entirely imaginary. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not table a single amendment to the assisted suicide bill, let alone lead “rather a small group” of individuals in the House of Lords in “blatant filibustering”, as Leith alleged.
I pointed this out on X, hoping for corrections to be noted. Rather devastatingly for Dame Prue, however, The Oldie decided to remove any trace of her article from their website. How sad. Fortunately, it has been preserved for posterity here.
One would think that, after such a disastrous foray into the realm of sociopolitical opinion commentary, Leith might aim to be more rigorous and precise with her fact-checking, and wouldn’t make such silly errors again. Alas, dear reader, she is at it again.
Writing about assisted suicide once more, this time for the Radio Times, Leith said on Monday, “Today four per cent of deaths in Canada are by euthanasia. Our opponents claim this is proof of the law not protecting people. But I see it as proof of real success, allowing those wanting to be done with life to get peace. Canadians are proud of their law and on the whole, support it.”
If only Dame Prue had gotten her facts right this time, too. According to Health Canada, the department of the Canadian Government responsible for their euthanasia programme named Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), 5.1 per cent of all deaths in Canada came by this means, in 2024, the most recent year for which data is available, not 4 per cent. This does not constitute a small difference, either; 16,499 died in Canada by assisted suicide or euthanasia in 2024.
It also may not be entirely correct to claim that Canadians are proud of this law and continue to support it. Only last month, the province of Alberta passed Bill 18, the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act, which reverses the expansion in the Canadian assisted suicide and euthanasia law that allowed people for whom death was “not reasonably foreseeable” to end their lives, or have them ended. As is often the case with social issues, legislation follows public opinion, not the other way around.
“No one would blame a soldier ending the life of a terminally wounded compatriot, shot to pieces and dying on a battlefield,” Dame Prue writes, attempting to justify assisted suicide with a plea to compassion. Unfortunately for her, I’m quite sure that the International Criminal Court would blame such a soldier at The Hague for a breach of the Rome Statute, as killing someone who is hors de combat is a war crime, regardless of whether they are friend or foe.
If you cannot get your facts right, you must be held adequately to account
I do not write plainly to disparage Dame Prue. Indeed, I find her courage at attempting to weigh in on such complex issues worthy of applause (of the brief but sincere kind). However, as with anyone who contributes to public discourse, if you cannot get your facts right, you must be held adequately to account.
“But now feels like the right time to step back (I’m 86 for goodness sake!),” she said when moving on from The Great British Bake Off. “[T]here’s so much I’d like to do, not least spend summers enjoying my garden.” Perhaps she’d like to spend this summer in a part of her garden where the WiFi doesn’t reach.
Enjoying The Critic online? It's even better in print
Subscribe today to Britain's most civilised magazine
Subscribe
