If you want to turn your white sheet red, make sure you only put red dye in the water.
If you want to ensure that the evidence you collect fits the conclusions with which you started, select for your committee those who begin with the same assumptions and conclusions as yourself.
The Commission on Assisted Dying has done just that. We also knew its conclusions before the publication of its report this morning because it had been widely leaked. But, even if no leaks had dripped out, the conclusions would not have been a surprise.
Two challenges this morning: (a) Look at the constitution of the commission and use your imagination to work out how they came to the conclusions they did, and (b) spot the difference between the campaigning goals of Dignity in Dying and Falconer’s conclusions. This commission is only independent in so far as it was self-selected and self- established. Loads of groups and bodies involved in the debate refused to speak with them.
So, before giving their report too much credence, just imagine the credibility an ‘independent’ group of evangelical Christians would have been given if they had established a ‘commission on abortion’ and concluded they were against it?
Assisted dying is a hugely important (as well as contentious) ethical matter which demands serious debate on philosophical, theological, anthropological and pastoral grounds. But the presentation of this commission and its coverage in a sympathetic media needs a massive dose of caution. On any other subject it wouldn’t have been taken seriously.
Update: link to Church of England response.
Further update: good BMJ post offering wider view.
Nick Baines's Blog 
January 5, 2012 at 10:36 am
[…] Bishop Nick Baines – Assisted dyeing […]
January 5, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Terminally ill people who want to die to should be allowed to do so. People’s individual religious beliefs should be totally disregarded on this matter: Death is a very personal thing and nobody has the right to impose their will on people who suffer.
If the church wants to promote its disproven brand of morality, it has the free will to broadcast its views to its congregation.
Besides that it needs to stay out of the real world, where fantasy stories simply don’t make the cut.
If you disagree, I challenge you to come to court and debate this matter.
But it won,t because we all know that religion is afraid of the courts. Because courts rely on evidence.
January 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm
The Cruel See? – Not! Very much the ‘Assistors’..
January 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“Assisted dying is a hugely important (as well as contentious) ethical matter which demands serious debate on philosophical, theological, anthropological and pastoral grounds”
Agreed, so what is your own view on this very important issue, Bishop ?
January 5, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Jim, this post was not a comment on the issue of assisted dying, simply on this supposedly ‘independent’ commission, and the conclusions it (unsurprisingly) came to.
Neither ‘religious people’ nor ‘the church’ are imposing their beliefs on others. At the moment, the law of the land prohibits assisted dying. As Bishop Nick said, it “is a hugely important (as well as contentious) ethical matter which demands serious debate on philosophical, theological, anthropological and pastoral grounds.”
This report is one contribution to the ongoing debate – on which ‘religious people’ have different views, as do medical personnel and non-religious people. The courts are already making a contribution to the debate by their judgements in recent cases. Ultimately, Parliament will make a decision which might change the law, or might keep it as it is.
You think religious belief is based on what you call ‘fantasy stories’. Others of us think that some ‘stories’ convey deep truth, truth that we’ve tried and found valid in ‘the real world’. There is evidence for that, too, if your mind is open to accept it.
January 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Kevin, I am against it. But, that wasn’t the point of the post.
January 5, 2012 at 6:20 pm
This piece of transparent and self-appointed agitprop would have gone largely unnoticed if the BBC had not chosen to trumpet it loudly on its webpage and make it the No. 2 story on the ‘Today’ News.
Note that the State Broadcaster is seeking to shape public opinion on this question.
January 5, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Bishop, of course the commission came to the conclusion it did. It was bound to because the members were convinced beforehand. No news there; or surprises except that some people seem surprised!
But what is your case or the case of the Church for denying the right of people to take their own lives if they feel it is appropriate to their circumstances? Show me where it is forbidden in the Bible.
Let me show you a Jewish rabbi who deliberately arranged and went to his death, sacrificing himself for the sins of others. He repeatedly declared his intention beforehand and emphatically rejected the advice and pleading of his disciples, even to the point of calling one of them “Satan”. In a series of speeches delivered over a period of months, he made it inevitable that the authorities would want to kill him – would need to do so, in their view, for the good of the nation. He deliberately went to the city where he wanted to die and sent off another of his disciples to betray him to the religious authorities. The disciple led an armed party to the rendezvous so that the rabbi was arrested, tried, found worthy of death on the grounds of blasphemy and handed over to the occupying Power. The Governor was persuaded that if he did not have the Rabbi killed, he would have a serious riot on his hands. The rabbi made no attempt to avoid his execution, which was crucifixion. He was killed as he had planned. “It is accomplished”, he said at the last.
Suicide, assisted by Caiaphas, Judas, Pilate and a few Roman soldiers. It was appropriate to the rabbi’s circumstances, necessary to God’s plan and prepared before time began. Was it wrong?
So, if it was all right for Jesus of Nazareth, why not for his followers when they are in suffering and want to end both their lives the distress of those who have to care for them?
January 5, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Pete, while that is a creative argument for your point it is altogether different. Christ’s sacrifice was just that….a SACRIFICE for our sins. It was not, and was never intentioned to be, a suicide. I really cannot explain it any simpler than that with my current little grey cells.
January 5, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Mr Peter Hirsch, your argument has every virtue except truth. So I expect someone in Tec will be using it soon.
Someone who submits to murder at the hands of others for the sake of the world is not a suicide but (at the very least) a hero.
I can think of only three suicides in the Bible: Saul, Ahithophel and Judas. Each died under God’s curse. Not very auspicious examples, I think.
January 5, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Jason, Kieran,
Of course our Lord’s death was a willing sacrifice and a complete oblation for the sins of the whole world – and yours and mine in particular. Of course the crucifixion was both a judicial murder and profoundly unjust. The point is, not only did Christ go willingly to his death, like a lamb to the slaughter, to be murdered by the hands of others, but he arranged it in detail right down to sending Judas off to betray him. Having given him a piece of bread dipped in wine, he said, “Go and do what you have to do and do it quickly” Christ had baited those who consequently sought his death. He now arranged the time and place of his arrest. What followed was what God had planned from the beginning of the world, the death of his own son, God incarnate, the Person who had made the arrangements. That is sacrifice by assisted suicide, heroism, for “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” and the act by which God incarnate reconciled sinful man to Himself.
Which is why I question the Church’s stand on assisted suicide. Suicide has long and perhaps always been condemned by the Church but show me where in the Bible it is forbidden and why that should be so.
And if you cannot show me that, then why should those who out of compassion help their friends to die, stand condemned by the Church?
I ask this question because I have seen the suffering of people who consistently over many months wished to die but could not. Out of compassion I would have helped but the law and the Church forbade me.
So now I challenge the accepted norms. Do you have an answer for me? Does Bishop Nick?
January 6, 2012 at 7:48 am
Is it possible to establish a genuinely independent body for this discussion? Are there still many people left who have not yet formed an opinion about this issue? And if there are, how credible are they, when the matter has been discussed extensively in the public domain for years?
January 6, 2012 at 12:38 pm
The good bishop rightly points out that a commission of evangelical christians which concluded it was ‘against abortion’ would not be given much credence. However, they would claim divine authority for their conclusions, and thus the God-given right to impose them upon others. They would use their statutory representation in the House of Lords to ensure that the matter was debated, and would cry that they were being persecuted for their religion if their opinion were not accepted.
January 6, 2012 at 1:01 pm
The following are just my “post-it” notes attached to the comments already made:-
This is a debate for everyone and I would suggest, Jim, that non-religious people will also be divided in their opinion. Not sure why, as a Christian, I should have an opinion only when I walk through a church door and leave it behind when I work in the ‘world’. As I have worked as a nurse specialist in palliative care, renal medicine and research I do think I have a valid contribution to the discussion but I will be aware that my faith will be reflected in my point of view. Just as Terry Pratchett (I admire him as a person and I enjoy his books) is also influenced by what gives his life purpose. So I agree with others that his sponsorship of the paper is from a particular point of view. As would a paper sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church be from a certain bias. At least the ‘bias’ of both sets of papers would be open and transparent.
Many nurses and doctors have grave misgivings about any change in the law (and again, they do not necessarily have a religious faith that influences them in their point of view).
Those of us who have worked in palliative care and with patients with chronic conditions consider it a privilege to give the best quality of life they can to those who face the terminal end of their life. I have watched many people die…the majority of folk in this country rarely see it face to face nowadays. Our aim is to give the patient the space and time, if possible, to say “goodbye” and it is also a time for friends and family to let go. If we can keep a patient free of pain and allow them the dignity of being their unique personality, then it’s ”mission accomplished’ where the carers are concerned.
What our aims and efforts should go to as a society is for the best level of care to be available to all at the end of their life and it should not be a postcode lottery. So for me, the issue of assisted dying is a diversion from some very important political, health and economic decisions that need to be considered now.
Whenever this issue becomes a headline, I am always interested in the people who advocate for assisted dying. Many claim that they need the change in the law to prevent them suffering at the end of their life. Some of the the things that frighten them (and they are legitimate fears associated with their condition) should really be addressed by their medical team and simple interventions would reassure them that if those situations arose, then it is possible to alleviate that distress e.g. inability to swallow saliva leading to feelings of ‘drowning’ can be alleviated by a simple injection if the person does not want more active intervention by intubation. Some of the fears being raised, therefore, highlight the more worrying issues around the lack of communication between medical teams and their patients.
But the crucial word in this is ‘fear’. We will all face fear as we come to the end of our lives, unless it is very sudden or traumatic. Whatever our view of what comes after death, we all have a time where we will be afraid to sleep or become restless. It is a natural part of coming to terms with our bodies and brains shutting down. Then as part of that process of dying we come through that time to peace or ‘letting go’. I think it’s the final recognition that we are not in control and once we get that insight then the peace comes.
We would all, like Terry Pratchett, like to drift away in death with a glass of something in our hand (I’d like champagne please), with a favourite piece of music playing and be pain free. We fear that it won’t be like that. Our society should aim to give the best quality of care to provide that ideal end to the majority of it’s terminally ill (meaning that it treats the person as an individual and with dignity). For me, there is the doubt that assisted dying only gives an illusion of being in control of the end of your life. None of us are truly in control of it.
If anyone out there has also worked with the dying or chronically ill and wishes to present a different view to mine, please post as I would be interested to hear another point of view.
January 6, 2012 at 2:33 pm
I still call a huge difference in suicide and the sacrifice of Jesus. Our Saviour did not get himself killed by a bunch of thugs because he was depressed or terminally ill. He was involved in a prophecy that was ages in the making. He didn’t take it upon Himself alone to orchestrate all of it. Who could have done that to that level of detail to fulfill the prophesies? It was God. God was in it. God was the sacrifice that had to be paid in a precise manner. God was not an assisted suicide.
I am torn about the issue myself but I take great exception when anyone says that Jesus commited assisted suicide. I will never make any apologies for that stance. Sorry, Pete, but you are justifying your understandable position with an unjustifiable means.
January 6, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I do think that it is important, in a debate such as this, to avoid just ‘shooting the messenger’. The conclusions of the Commission should be argued on its merits, not on the basis of its membership.
January 6, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Erika, I agree.
But, we have tackled difficult issues before. It is not that long ago that suicide itself was illegal. Liberal people have gradually changed our attitudes to abortion, race, sexuallity. It has taken a long time, and a lot of courage from those who argued for change..
One day our dear leaders will stop insulting each other, address this important issue, and move forwards instead of sideways.
K
January 6, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Kevin, the conclsuions are shaped by the membership and how that is constituted matters enormously for the credibility of the conclusions arrived at (as opposed to those begun with).
January 6, 2012 at 6:45 pm
arthur, I can’t believe that is a serious comment.
January 6, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Heather Martin, thanks for this – experience at the sharp end is always telling. One of the most poignant elements of being a parish priest (for me) was accompanying people to and through their death – not always pleasant. But, your point has been reinforced by others – that there is a social and wider ethical element to one’s death and the dying person is not the only person involved.
January 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Peter, thanks for your further response. I agree with others that you are not comparing like with like and that to see Jesus’s death as an assisted suicide is mistaken. However, I think my response to the way you articulate your point is that (in common with other ethical issues) our emotions in the face of suffering must not cloud our judgement. I deeply sympathise with the agony of watching someone die and feeling helpless – I have been there on more than one occasion. But, that says more about me than it does about the other person or the issue for which legislation reflects a world view. Compassion is a slippery emotion.
January 6, 2012 at 7:15 pm
If you only read one other thing about assisted dyeing, please make it this moving account:
http://choiceindying.com/2012/01/05/andrew-brown-is-an-idiot-its-time-for-him-to-go/#more-8918
January 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm
This is not just about Compassion. There’s some hard theology to be done too.
If I truly accept the Christian idea that we have been given free will and that each of us will eventually be answerable to God, do we have the right to deny this God given free will to sane adults who wish to make their own decisions, just because we might not like the decisions?
By all means, implement everything Heather Martin suggests, she clearly knows what she is talking about! And let’s have every possible safeguard to prevent slippery slopes, thin ends of wedges, coersion and all the other bete noires usually listed in these discussions. They’re valid concerns!
But ultimately and having given everyone the option of excellent psychological and palliative care, there is a theological case to be made for allowing people that free will God has given all of us. Part of what being Christian means is to give up the idea that we have the right to control other people and to respect their autonomy to the same extent that God respects ours.
January 6, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Heather, people who die in your care are blessed to have such loving support, with such experience in relieving the suffering of the dying. However, it may sound a warped truism, but not everyone is lucky enough to die with cancer. Someone close to me died following a heart attack, and we had to watch as her circulation gradually shut down over several weeks. She received the best possible medical care, as you’ve described, but it was an awful time, which would have dragged on even longer if she’d been given fluids via a tube. You have probably seen elderly demented people slowly shrivel away with contractures, bedsores and incontinence, lashing out at their carers. People will say that this needn’t or shouldn’t happen; the trouble is that it does.
If life has lost its value, if one is slipping towards the point where they’ll no longer be able to express the desire to die, let alone take the step themselves – what ideologue will deny them the final dignity of choosing their exit?
Is death in a hospice really unassisted? Those who can choose that luxury have a whole team assisting to make their last hours comfortable. So what is morally wrong with empowering someone to have the final choice over their life?
January 7, 2012 at 9:36 am
“This is not just about Compassion. There’s some hard theology to be done too.”
Yes – and I don’t think you have done it here, Erika. Here is a simple maxim in the Thomist tradition for Christian moralists that cuts across all the secular (and somewhat deluded) 1960s cant about ‘autonomy’: if an action is wrong in itself, to help someone do it is also morally wrong. Just because something is legal according to the laws of man (e.g. consensual group sex, prostitution, the Enabling Act etc) doesn’t mean it passes muster before Almighty God.
January 7, 2012 at 10:58 am
The other thing that really troubles me about this debate it that it appears to be one group of people – healthy adults – assuming the right to make decisions about another group of people – terminally ill adults – seeminly without listening to a word these terminally ill people tell them. It makes me feel as helpless and angry as the lgbt debate in the church where one group of people – straight ones, largely men – assume the right to make binding decisions about another group of people without actually talking to them or listening to them.
I don’t know what it is, this impulse to control others and the assumption that we have a God given right to do so.
But it’s not right. We must let go of it.
At least let’s start by having an even number of healthy and terminally ill people on these committees and genuinely hearing what we’re being told.
January 7, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I know you have an interest in language, and I very much regret that campaigning groups have annexed the positive/independent connotations of the word “Commission” in this way.
Both the ‘Commission on Assisted Dying” and the “High Pay Commission” are deliberately flying under false colours with an aura of officialdom and respectability.
Both are comprised and funded by a known predictable and self defined quarter of the debate.
The word Commission should be reserved for those brought together from different perspectives with a shared objective of openly exploring that which they agree to be complex and in need of original thinking.
It joins any number of words that are now no go areas for those unwilling to be aligned with unwanted imprinted overtones. How often do we now momentarily pause and reflect before we use words such as ‘free-enterprise” ‘liberty”, “fairness” ,’progressive” “radical” “liberation” “patriotic” lest it carry an implication to someone who might mistakenly assume we agree with something we don’t.
Plainly language moves and has nuances. Some annexation is inevitable but “Commission” could have been left as neutral common ground.
January 7, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Martin, thank you. I offer ‘inclusive’…
January 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Kieran,
I may not have expressed myself clearly. You say “Just because something is legal according to the laws of man (e.g. consensual group sex, prostitution, the Enabling Act etc) doesn’t mean it passes muster before Almighty God.”
That’s is undoubtedly true.
But I am not responsible for other people’s relationship with God. He has given them the same free will he has given me and they will eventually be judged just as I will be.
The bible, for me, is first of all a guidebook on how I should live, not a guidebook on how I should force others to live.
I can believe something to be desperately wrong and still support the right of other people to do it, provided it does not harm anyeone else.
January 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Nick, I like “inclusive”, provided it does not mean simply “those for and those against”, but also “those not (yet) affected by the legislation and those affected”.
January 7, 2012 at 4:11 pm
“The other thing that really troubles me about this debate it that it appears to be one group of people … assuming the right to make decisions about another group of people …. It makes me feel as helpless and angry as the lgbt debate in the church…”
Why your helpless anger? Since you understand “the church” in socio-political terms, why not start a new liberal Protestant church where moral questions can be decided by discussion groups, without reference to the Bible or traditional morality where this is uncongenial to the liberal mind? After all, this is how modern liberal Protestants have come to embrace abortion and homosexuality. Why not for suicide also?
January 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm
“But I am not responsible for other people’s relationship with God. He has given them the same free will he has given me and they will eventually be judged just as I will be.”
That’s your situation, Erika. However, I am a pastor and a teacher, and I will be accountable to Almighty God for false pastoring and false teaching.
“The bible, for me, is first of all a guidebook on how I should live, not a guidebook on how I should force others to live.”
As a pastor, I don’t have a private “for me” on this. As the Church of England and other denominations teach, the Bible is God’s Word Written.It binds the conscience and teaching of the Church Catholic.All sorts of people “force me to live” in certain ways I don’t necessarily agree with. I have to pay taxes fro all kinds of evil things. All kinds of political morality is inflicted upon me, on pain of fine or imprisonment. If you’re a tax payer, you face similar impositions. But I do want a society that is nearer God’s will, not further from it.
“I can believe something to be desperately wrong and still support the right of other people to do it, provided it does not harm anyeone else.”
Such omniscience! Do you have some infallible utilitarian calculus that can work out precisely how much “harm” or “good” an action will produce? Jeremy Betham would be most impressed! Do you think “harm” stops with the individual?
I don’t think we will agree, because I am trying to reason as a catholic Christian, in the tradition of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, not as a secular individualist.
January 7, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Kieran,
“That’s your situation, Erika. However, I am a pastor and a teacher, and I will be accountable to Almighty God for false pastoring and false teaching.”
Of course you’re free to pastor and to teach as you believe God calls you to.
But people are free to accept your pastoring and teaching according to their own understanding of faith.
You are not, here, arguing to be allowed to “teach” and “pastor”, but you are demanding the right to legislate.
There is a huge difference.
January 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Kieran,
I agree with you that I have to pay taxes for things I don’t agree with.
The difference is that in a democracy, my views are represented. At the end of a democratic process it is possible that my views have not been accepted but at least I know they have been considered. I can therefore live with the outcome and I do, of course, have the option to participate more in the political process and to try and work for change regarding those things I really object to.
This Commission we are talking about was not a democratic body that represents all kinds of views but it was a body made up largely of people who support assisted suicide. Which is why Nick objected to it.
The answer to that is not to replace it by a theocratic Commission full of Christians who oppose assisted suicide.
That would be equally unrepresentative and undemocratic.
We are talking about a secular law here applicable to people of all faiths and none. Even Protestants. Even Liberals. Even atheists. Even Christians who have a different understanding of faith to you.
And so any advisory body should, ideally, include all shades of opinion as well as people actually affected by the legislation.
But I had not wanted to argue from a secular point of view, I had deliberately wanted to make a point from a faith perspective. Jesus never forced people to agree with him and to live according to his teachings. He offered his teaching, sometimes passionately, and he warned of consequences if people rejected it. But that’s where he left it. There is no coercion anywhere. If we’re to go and do likewise – should we not restrict ourselves to persuasion?
January 7, 2012 at 6:28 pm
It was interesting to see the Revd James Woodward’s article in the Church Times this week. He is a member of the ‘Commission’ and is the only dissenting voice from its report. He says that the turning point for him was a visit to the Swiss Dignitas clinic
January 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm
I’m continuing to read the comments with interest.
Thank you, EnglishAtheist, for the link to the article.
Thank you, Bishop Nick, for your response to my post.
Thank you, Nickodemus, for your response too. I am not an exceptional nurse but one that was fortunate to be trained by a great team. There were a lot of us around in all the places I worked. Just to clarify, I cared for patients who were dying with other chronic conditions as well as with cancer. I agree that the most challenging area to care for are those patients suffering at the end stages of Alzheimers/dementia. But I would continue to argue that we can make massive improvements to care if we are willing to pay for it as a society. That means switching money from other things and would need society to pressurise the government to do so.
I would also point out (as the BBC report did on Terry Pratchett’s interview) that he is suffering from a condition that would preclude him from being allowed to access the route to Assisted Dying if the proposed legislation, as proposed, went through unchanged. That would also include most patients suffering from that condition as well.
Is death in a hospice unassisted? Always a good point to raise and discuss. It applies to terminal care wherever it is delivered by the medical and nursing teams. People usually think of doctors prescribing morphine and whether it’s the condition or the morphine that ‘kills’ the patient. Pain relief is a skilled area of palliative care and morphine is not always the best way of relieving it. This is where it can be a postcode lottery because it will depend on the training on the team delivering the care whether there is a good level of pain relief balanced with the opportunity to give the patient the best quality of life at the end. Again, it will also come down to the communication skills of the team with their patients, which can also vary – though it shouldn’t be. So it comes down to money being spent on training of medical and nursing staff as well as the appropriate facilities for caring people at the end stage of their life.
So the difference between the treatment of terminally ill patients in the UK at present and those who are requesting the right for assisted dying is the matter of the choice of when to terminate their life. Also it requires that someone carry out that act for them and not be prosecuted under the law.
If the proviso under the proposed law would be that two doctors have to agree the person requesting assisted dying is capable of making that decision, I do wonder how many patients would find themselves prevented from going forward with the procedure if they were found to be clinically depressed. There is a gold standard for diagnosing clinical depression that can be used by GPs and specialist nurses, so it’s not an impractical test. Chronic disease, cancer and cardiac patients have been found in research studies in the UK and USA to have a high level of clinical depression which often goes unrecognised and untreated (though awareness of the problem has been growing over the last five to ten years). Again, this comes back to training and caring and money being spent on the right areas.
So personally, I still have great reservations about legislation for assisted dying going forward.
Sorry this a bit long and rambling. Sometimes I have to write stuff down to get the brain working along a train of thought.
Again, please do respond to any point I have raised here.
January 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Heather,
thank you for this.
I absolutely agree that more money must be spent on hospice care, on training and on palliative care, and most importantly, there has to be a sea-change in attitudes about our despicable treatment of old and frail people.
People would then have a much more genuine choice whether to opt for assisted suicide and would do so less from fear of appalling treatment.
But you say “If the proviso under the proposed law would be that two doctors have to agree the person requesting assisted dying is capable of making that decision, I do wonder how many patients would find themselves prevented from going forward with the procedure if they were found to be clinically depressed.”
If I understood the proposed law correctly, the two doctors also have to certify that the patient is terminally ill and likely to die within the next 12 months.
That would exclude depression, would it not?
January 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Bishop, you are entitled to your opinion that I am mistaken and I respect your right to your opinion. Yours, too Kieran. You seem to see suicide as shameful. Perhaps you should read Shakespeare’s plays about the Roman period. There are other views, too.
But I asked you, Bishop, to present an argument based, not on your opinion but on biblical text. Where in the Bible is suicide condemned? If you cannot tell me that, develop your argument as to why it is wrong in all circumstances.
Then deal with the issue of sacrifice. Why is it not a suicide when you set up the situation so that it will inevitably result in your own death. That the sacrifice was required since before creation is immaterial. I would like to see your reasoning.
If you cannot do that, you have lost the argument – which may not count for much in these columns but you will lose it as the pro-assisted-suicide crew develop their arguments.
January 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Sorry, Heather, or were you saying that terminally ill people might be prevented because they were depressed?
And that this would be a bad or a good thing?
January 7, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Erika, you haven’t understood my point. Suicide is immoral. The Church catholic has always taught so. Suicide used to be illegal, which might sound odd, but the entailment of this in public policy was:
1. assisting or promoting a crime was also illegal;
2. no benefits should accrue to others through an illegal act (e.g., claiming on a life insurance property).
It is no surprise that as Europe abandons its Christian roots, the old pagan praise of suicide (read the ancient Romans on the subject) should resurface. It’s all part of the culture of death. As for “Christians who have a different understanding of faith to you”, the Christian faith isn’t *my invention, it’s from Jesus and the Apostles. I’m not really interested in modern apostasy.
Jesus (and his Apostles) had a somewhat stronger view of the rights and duties of the State under God than you seem to suggest.
January 7, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Heather, thank you for your detailed comment. I totally agree with you that anxieties about end of life should, in the first instance, lead to more resources being provided for the care of people at this stage of their lives – as you say, whatever the underlying illness.
Dementia is a particularly difficult area; many people becoming aware of the early stages of cognitive decline would dread the thought of becoming that shrivelled shell of humanity – we are rather good at hiding them in EMI units, aren’t we? They would also dread what their dementia may do to their loved ones. There’s often a period of several years’ “care in the community” which wreaks a heavy toll on the carer.
Many people with terminal disease are depressed – hardly surprising! However, it would be hard to prove that the desire to stop living was a result of the depression, and not a logical response to an untenable situation.
So, while agreeing with you on the importance of striving to remove the need for accelerated or pre-emptive dying, I believe that provision should be made for those who wish, subject to proper safeguards, to take that step.
Addressing the context of this discussion, I still haven’t seen any convincing moral or theological argument to justify preventing one person from assisting another to willingly end a life that has lost all value.
January 8, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Thank you for being kind enough to respond, but I’m surprised that you can’t believe my comment was serious. It was entirely so. Evangelical Christians are the first to wish to impose their views on others (possibly because they genuinely believe that they are informed by God, though it sometimes seems mere viciousness), and of course they have been able to do so for much of history. “It’s what God wants” is the cry of the Christian Institute and others of their ilk in this country, and apparently the whole of the Republican Party in the US. Such remarks almost always appear dictatorial in intent to those of us who do not believe. Whenever any battle is lost by this group (for instance the recent defeat of the Dorries amendment), they immediately cry that there is a “war against religion” and that Christianity is under threat. If the church wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show much more thoughtfulness towards the aspirations of non-believers (and those of other beliefs) in its responses, not seek to dictate what is good for them from the standpoint of its own religious tenets. I think another of your correspondents has made a similar point very well, and perhaps more temperately!
January 8, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Arthur, thanks for the response. I think I reacted to the generalised assumptions about Christians. I have gone on record on television, radio and in print to contend that Christians are not being persecuted in Britain – and incurred the wrath of some who think I am letting the side down. But, they are a loud and vocal minority. The Christian Institute is tiny and does not represent the Christian Church, let alone all evangelicals. I know American Republicans who do not fit the stereotype you suggest. Unfortunately, small voices can be amplified by being broadcast in media that (a) need to caricature for the sake of simplictiy and (b) look for where the conflict or complaint is loudest.
The Church (although I am not sure who might be meant by this catch-all phrase) gives serious attention to ‘the aspirations of non-believers’. The Church of England, in particular, devotes massive amounts of resources to serving local communities (and the nation as a whole) not for the sake of the Church of England, but the common good of all. That is what compels us to engage with public debate and not to hide away on the basis that religious faith is private.
I might add that the greatest ‘dictators’ in history have not operated out of a Christian world view…
January 8, 2012 at 2:06 pm
No Kieran, it is you who has not understood my point.
I respect your view that suicide is immoral.
I respect your view that the church has rightly always condemned it and that this implies a necessary condemnation for ever onwards.
But a. not all all Christians agree with your view.
And b. we have no right to impose our views, however right we believe them to be.
From a theological aspect, Jesus knew very well that all of his views were 100% right, yet he never imposed a single one of them on anyone.
Rightness is one thing.
What we do with the knowledge of our rightness is a completely different thing.
Based on this, you can argue that Christians should not try to impose laws on a secular society but that they have every right to lobby for their own view to prevail. This is indeed what most people do.
I am simply taking this a step further by saying that, if I genuinely respect the free will God has given us, then I must actively accord as much free will as possible to every human being. I can then still try to persuade them to follow what I know or believe to be God’s truth. But just like Jesus never forced anyone, I must never force anyone either.
January 8, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Bishop thank you, but to complete your last sentence “… but that, too, would be a sweeping generalisation.”
January 8, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Arthur, I actually think it wouldn’t! It doesn’t prove anything, but I think it would be true. However, I do take your point.
January 8, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Erika,
I’ve put three links below to help inform you of the type of research I was involved with just before I retired. I hope you find them informative and useful:-
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressrelease/2008-07-04-
beating-depression-for-cancer-patients
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2808%2960991-5/abstract
http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/trials/a-trial-looking-treating-depression-people-with-cancer-smart-oncology-2
If a patient was assessed and diagnosed with clinical depression, then again, they would be excluded from the assisted dying programme. In my opinion, having the assessment in place would be a good thing because clinical depression is a mental illness overlaid on the primary terminal illness. Please don’t confuse it with natural sadness. I repeat, there is a gold standard tool for assessing people for a diagnosis.
I have worked with patients who were clinically depressed with suicidal ideation but after treatment for the depression, found the thoughts of suicide faded despite a very poor prognosis.
So my reaction would be that the 12 month prognosis (which is only ever an approximation) should include the diagnosis and treatment of clinical depression. The doctors could be requested to re-assess after treatment and, if depression is no longer a significant factor, then you could accept a decision from the patient that isn’t clouded by a mental illness.
I hope that I have also addressed some of the response from Nickodemus too. Please let me know if that is the case.
Although the ‘commission’ proposed that the terminally ill person administer the medication that would terminate their life. I assume that it will be prepared by a health professional. At the present time, I am uncertain that there will be a change in the doctors’ or nurses’ professional bodies that would vote to agree to this. Should they be forced by legislation to participate? Should there be a proviso to allow medical professionals to opt out of providing that ‘service’?
The thoughts below are further “post-it” notes:-
I put the following quote from your response, Nickodemus :- “Addressing the context of this discussion, I still haven’t seen any convincing moral or theological argument to justify preventing one person from assisting another to willingly end a life that has lost all value.”
As I wrote in my original response, all that I think and do is not divorced from my faith and following of Christ, my Lord. So, although much of my responses have seemed to come from a nursing/medical background, it is rooted in the incarnational life of Jesus. At the root of my relationships with other people are the Jesus’ words of the Beatitudes (Beautiful Attitudes) found in Matthew chapter five and onwards. My inner thoughts and feelings to others find their way in the outworking of my dealing with those around me. I think Jesus asks us to look at our intentions and our attitudes and examine our actions – what do they say of us and how do we compare to Christ in his relationship to His Father and to us, His brothers and sisters?
With that in mind, I highlight your words, “a life that has lost all value”. As humans how do we determine the ‘value’ of a life? As Christians, we say that God calls a human life precious, beyond price and worth the giving of Himself. So can we ever say that our life has lost it’s value? One person may think their life is not worth continuing, how do we judge if their assessment is correct?
Also, my attitude will also consider the practicalities of assisted dying. If I believe that society should aim to provide a dignified and caring service to the terminally ill, how would that be achieved if assisted dying were legalised? My concern would be that it would have to be more open and less private than any other form of treatment to prevent any abuse of the system. How would that impact on the patient requesting assisted dying and how would that impact on the lives of their relatives and friends? Would it help the grieving process or would it complicate it? Would it harm relationships or bring better communication between family members? Those last thoughts are definitely a work in progress.
As a final note to this comment, I’ve just been preparing a “Bridges to Contemplation by Thomas Merton” for the local ecumenical prayer group. One passage is from Karen Armstrong’s ” The Spiral Staircase” and I quote, ” All the world’s faiths put suffering on the top of their agenda, because it is an inescapable fact of human life, and unless you see things as they really are, you cannot live correctly”. If you have access to the book then our group will be looking at sections from pages 270-272 and 293. My contemplation may be “How can I see things as they really are in order to live correctly”? But I hope my understanding of the divine may make me kinder, more empathetic, and impels me to express that sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness (from page 293).
January 8, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Heather,
thank you!
And I want to say that I absolutely agree with you that no-one must ever be compelled to assist someone in actively committing suicide – I’m saying “actively” because we have already accepted the right of patients to refuse medical treatment even if it leads to death or hastens death, which could already be classed as a passive form of assisted suicide.
And that I absolutely agree that a holistic assessment of the whole patient and their family and environment is absolutely necessary, that assessment for clinical and for drug induced depression must be made (my own daughter suffered from steroid induced severe depression with a definite suicide risk during leukaemia treatment and I would never treat depression lightly!).
Assisted suicide could only be supported in conjuction with excellent medical and psychological care in all other respects.
The current situation whereby we don’t offer outstanding end of life provisions for everyone and where we have a climate in which old and frail people are often seen as expendable must be addressed at the same time.
January 8, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Erika writes: “I respect your view that suicide is immoral.
I respect your view that the church has rightly always condemned it and that this implies a necessary condemnation for ever onwards.
But a. not all all Christians agree with your view.
And b. we have no right to impose our views, however right we believe them to be.”
– This is not “MY” view – it is the uniform teaching of the Bible and the Great Tradition of the Church. If you think differently about them orality of suicide, then that is “YOUR” view, but it isn’t the Church’s teaching.
– ALL societies “impose” their views on what is morally acceptable; hence laws against murder, paedophilia, prostitution, pornography, blasphemy etc etc. That’s what LAWS are – they are not suggestions. Of course, many of these things are no longer crimes. Maybe consensual sex among minors will be the next “refom” in law – this is already the case in parts of Europe.
“From a theological aspect, Jesus knew very well that all of his views were 100% right, yet he never imposed a single one of them on anyone.”
– Wrong. He did impose his “views” on the Church. “You are my disciples if you keep my commandments.” He wasn’t a politician, so wasn’t legislating for Judea and Galilee. But he did make it very clear what being a faithful disciple of his meant.
“Rightness is one thing.
What we do with the knowledge of our rightness is a completely different thing.”
Knowledge imposes responsibility, as the Buergermeister of Belsen discovered in 1945.
“Based on this, you can argue that Christians should not try to impose laws on a secular society but that they have every right to lobby for their own view to prevail. This is indeed what most people do.”
Well, you may have a point there. I always thought that Wilberforce chap was going a bit far imposing his views on others.
“I am simply taking this a step further by saying that, if I genuinely respect the free will God has given us, then I must actively accord as much free will as possible to every human being. I can then still try to persuade them to follow what I know or believe to be God’s truth. But just like Jesus never forced anyone, I must never force anyone either.”
I guess you’re not planning a career switch, to become a police officer or a magistrate, then. Don’t make such a god out of ‘free will’ – read Luther on the subject and think gospel thoughts instead! & don’t make a case for helping self-harmers.
January 9, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Kieran,
I think there is still a fundamental misunderstanding of what we’re talking about.
“- This is not “MY” view – it is the uniform teaching of the Bible and the Great Tradition of the Church. If you think differently about them orality of suicide, then that is “YOUR” view, but it isn’t the Church’s teaching.”
Yes – but we’re not debating a church teaching here, we’re discussing the possibility of a secular law. And within that context, your view, whether church inspired or from somewhere else, is only one opinion among many that have to be heard and taken into account.
“- ALL societies “impose” their views on what is mora”lly acceptable; hence laws against murder, paedophilia, prostitution, pornography, blasphemy etc etc.”
Quite.
And what we’re doing here is debating whether assisted suicide for terminally ill people comes under the heading of what the state must forbid or what it can allow.
“Wrong. He did impose his “views” on the Church. “You are my disciples if you keep my commandments.” He wasn’t a politician, so wasn’t legislating for Judea and Galilee. But he did make it very clear what being a faithful disciple of his meant.
Yes, but as I said, we’re not talking about the church, we’re talking about a possible change in a secular law that will apply to people who are not faithful disciples of Christ and who therefore do have the right not to accept his authority. And to those who accept his authority but who interpret the morality of this issue different to you – and yes, different to what the church has always done. Just because it’s new doesn’t automatically make it immoral.
“I guess you’re not planning a career switch, to become a police officer or a magistrate, then.”
I don’t recall saying that I don’t obey the law or that I advocate that everyone should disobey the law. For as long as assisted suicide is illegal, of course no-one must assist a suicide.
But the question we’re discussing here is whether it should remain illegal in all cases.
“Don’t make such a god out of ‘free will”
Now THAT’s the really interesting one.
God made a god out of free will.
Every time people question why the world is in such a state, why God allows all the horrific evil we heap on each other, the standard answer is that God in his loving wisdom gave us Free Will.
Personally, I’d much rather he’d built in a safety fuse, a kind of barrier beyond which we could not go (your Belsen example springs to mind). But the fact is that God seems to take free will extremely seriously indeed.
Shouldn’t we?
January 9, 2012 at 7:09 pm
I’ll venture one last comment on this thread & then I’ll bail.
1. The Christian Church arrived in an empire where infanticide, suicide, slavery, child abuse and a host of other avoidable evils were rampant, but accepted by “secular” society.
Even when Christianity became the official religion of the empire (in AD 381), the majority was still not even nominally Christian. None of this stopped Christians “imposing” “their” morality on the empire, even if some evils, such as slavery, took centuries to eradicate.
2. Nearly all social changes in the past 50 years, affecting divorce, abortion, homosexuality, and now suicide, have arisen from the decay of Christian faith in the world, The institutional church is not immune from this decay. E. L. Mascall wrote a book many years ago called “The Secularisation of Christianity.” It describes exactly the kind of moral anomie and theological confusion that Erika commends. The decay of mainline European Protestantism is already very advanced, and given its age profile, most of it will be literally dead by around 2025.
3. The financial crisis gripping Europe – already caught in a demographic downward spiral – will be more grist to the mill to dispatch a lot of sick, dying people. Brave New World?
January 9, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Well said, Erika!
January 9, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Heather, thank you again. I can see that you have a lot of experience in dealing with depression in end-of-life situations, and I respect that.
Although the BMA is officially against assisted dying, I think that is because they feel that they have been tainted by the Harold Shipman affair, and have decided to wait for society to take the lead on this. (purely my interpretation). This is probably wise. Where possible, the Doctor’s or Nurse’s role is to interpret and apply the patient’s wishes. I think that if we got to the situation where assisted dying was accepted by Society as a whole, there would be Dr’s willing to be involved – rather as we have today with abortion (which I think is awful).
Regarding “a life that has lost all value” I meant that, in the sense of one’s bodily life. The death that we’re discussing here doesn’t extinguish the eternal life for which Jesus died. However, we may be trapped inside this body, battling (with the help of people like you) pain, nausea, general malaise, limitation of movement, maybe difficulty in breathing, talking or eating … somewhere along the line the balance sheet goes into the red, and things are only going to get worse. St Paul said (Phil 1:23) that he desired to depart, to be with Christ, but knew that he would stay on to labour for the Lord. So, when you can no longer labour, when each moment is a negative experience, why linger?
You make a good point, saying that assisted dying needs to be open in order to prevent abuse, and that this could adversely affect the experience of those involved. We just don’t have rituals for this sort of thing, so the only example people have is from watching TV. Society still needs to evolve both an acceptance of death, and a way of dealing with it which is loving and supportive. Any individual’s choosing to end their life must be terribly hard on those close to them, especially their children. Those left behind may feel anger at being abandoned, or guilt, and this would have to be worked through beforehand.
Oddly enough, I just finished “The Spiral Staircase” over Christmas. I still don’t understand where Karen actually stands – so I’ll move on to “The Case for God”.
“unless you see things as they really are, you cannot live correctly” – If I remember correctly, Karen was saying that we have to acknowledge suffering, and not glibly sweep it away as God’s will, or the result of sin. I am sure that as a result of your age and experience (you mentioned that you’d retired) you’re very well placed to see things as they really are. I believe that the Holy Spirit gives us an inner witness about the truth of things, if only we listen.
January 11, 2012 at 7:26 am
Peter,
Here is why I see a huge difference in assisted suicide and Christ’s sacrifice.
I was a US Marine. I trained and trained for warfare. I readied myself with the best tactical training, weapons training and hand-to-hand techniques. I was schooled in chemical warfare so I could continue to fight in that environment. I went through intensive first aid courses, multiple vehicle driving sessions, years of historical education and a mutitude beyond that.
I was ready for most eventualities in a hostile environment. Then I was deployed to a combat zone. Was I commiting assisted suicide? Had I put everyhting in place to make sure that my death was the outcome? Was my motivation a masochistic and nihilistic self destructive tendency?
Nope.
I was serving something far bigger than myself. I was READY to sacrifice my life for my country. I was READY to put my life on the line so others wouldn’t have to. I put myself through all of the hardship of training because I had a calling to protect others. Kind of like Christ. I can relate to His gut wrenching protective nature. He FELT it. He prepared for it. He died for it. He sacrificed Himself so all might live.
He was trained and ready for His ministry and He carried it out as only He could. It ended with His sacrifice and not a suicide.
January 13, 2012 at 9:50 am
“The present law strikes an excellent balance between safeguarding hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people and treating with fairness and compassion those few people who, acting out of selfless motives, have assisted a loved one to die.”
I share the churches concerns that the legalisation of assisted dying could be abused. At the same time I feel that if it were in some way legalised or decriminalise it would allow those who are at the point they feel it is their only option to receive additional support which may prevent them from having to go to that extreme. Maybe some form of crisis team who could provide additional counselling and look into other care options.
The problem with this is that we would have to accept that, in a small number of cases, assisted dying may be the outcome. At least it would prevent the bereaved relatives from having to go through a criminal investigation after the death.
I don’t think there will ever be a perfect solution, it will always be an emotive subject.
January 13, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Thanks for replying to my comments, Nickodemus. I think you’ve raised some more interesting points. But i don’t think i can usefully add anything more here. I think the most important word you used, for me, was at the end – “listen”.
I hope I am always ready to do that – listening to God, to others and myself.
January 14, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Yes I agree with Heather and Nickodemus – listening is a good route into the experience – any experience – of suffering, especially for people with dementia and/or depression. Not always easy to see the world through their eyes, but always worth trying, and you can always say you did your best.