Assisted Dying

Last night’s lecture on Assisted Dying from Bishop Richard (aka Rt Revd Lord Harries of Pentregarth) certainly gave us plenty to think about.

He began by pointing out how much control we already have over our life’s ending, which is a surprising amount:

1. The right to refuse “burdensome” treatment, where it is not doing any good;

2. Advance directives in our will – do not resuscitate under conditions specified;

3. The double-effect of pain-killing drugs which may also shorten life;

4. Good palliative care, as pioneered by Dame Cicely Saunders, although not yet as available as we would hope.

The double-effect came up later in questions in conjunction with the Liverpool Pathway, as it seemed that this was already deemed as “Assisted Dying” to some, and seemed broadly acceptable without a change in the law.

We then heard about the proposed change which is based upon Oregon’s law, via Lord Falconer, to the current Private Members Bill by Bob Marris.  This would cover remarkably few of the cases which promote the cause for assisted suicide in the media as the bill requires a life expectancy of <6 months (although, as was pointed out, the phrase “You only have 6 months to live” is often way too pessimistic, presumably because doctors want to give the worse-case scenario otherwise people will feel short-changed).

The discussion about the proposed legislation will revolve around the safeguards and whether it is better for doctors (how many) and/or the law courts to make the final decision and who is then the ultimate authority rather than just the rubber stamp.  However, the real question is whether it is even possible to give the right to die to some without also creating a duty to die for others – and this is why Christians take a stand for those who may feel pressurised to end their lives prematurely.  It is easy to imagine a scenario where elderly relatives don’t want to be a burden on their descendants, despite whatever assurances the family try to give. This would be very different from the current situation where the occasional Dignitas death takes place but is not deemed to be prosecutable by the DPP as the families motives were purely compassionate in going along with the express wishes of the suicide “victim”.

Perhaps an issue where I didn’t find a suitable answer was in response to the statement “You wouldn’t treat a dog like that!”, i.e. we would call the vet to put it out of its misery.  I guess that depends how much you love the dog and what financial resources you have.  Even where expense is not an issue, there are still cases where the “humane” thing to do is a lethal injection, and the motive is because we love our pets, so is this really that different to humans?  Expense should not be an issue in deciding the value of a human life, but could be a prime motivator if Assisted Dying becomes an option for the increasing numbers in very expensive care homes.  And this is where the slippery slope comes in, as the current bill would not apply for non-fatal conditions such as dementia: once mental capacity is lost, then the principle of assisted dying could be extended to euthanasia (the next step as already taken in the Netherlands).

We certainly covered the politics, but what about the theology?  This came towards the end, with the Christian understanding of life as a sacred gift in which our human identity is defined more by our relationships, i.e. the African Ubuntu philosophy of “I am because we are” rather than our enlightened Western emphasis of individual rights and Descartes “I think, therefore I am” (could this be a new catch phrase for the pro-euthanasia lobby?).  The first question from our audience was WWJD (that's "What Would Jesus Do? for non wristband wearers!) if the option of miraculous healing wasn’t available to him – the answer is demonstrated by the current ‘body of Christ’ pioneering and supporting palliative care: Christ-like compassion results in Care not Killing.

But, is that the only Christian response?  It seems odd at times that those of us who believe in life after death should argue so strongly for allowing the life to continue until its natural end.  I was reminded of this video interview of Bishop Richard by Richard Dawkins, where they reach a similar conclusion (scroll to 9 mins if you can’t wait).  Whilst our death cannot achieve anything like the unique sacrifice of Christ and we should not wish it away, our Christian hope is that it is not the end.  That is the context in which we as Christians can face death, and suffering.  As Paul wrote to the believers in Philippi:

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labour for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know!  I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.