Locked-in syndrome and Assisted dying

I've let this issue for a few days to let the immediate responses pass through and now, as they've done that, I thought I'd throw in my sixpence worth of opinion.

A warning
I would like to move away from the 'all life is sacred' argument (I'm a Christian and so I think we might take that as read, especially in the light of the brand of Christian that I am) and deal with other responses and considerations.

First and foremost I have to say that I despair of those who take themselves off to Switzerland and check out of this life. My despair is increased even more by those who do so before they become ill or their (assumed, desired or demanded) 'quality of life' is impaired (taking for instance Fred and Joan Downes - she had a few weeks left and he had non-life threatening, 'old-age' issues). I also despair of those who find themselves in dire situations through accident or illness such that they are paralysed either completely or in part. My despair is e=increased by the fact that I have worked with men and women who are disabled, paralysed and coping with limb loss and yet manage to have full, and contributing, lives despite this. Seems to me that there are many who simply fold rather than 'man up' and this is, as I understand it, wrong. But hey ho, it is their choice at the end of the day - it's just a poor one.

So back to the issue in hand (hooray the reader cries).

Last week, the High Court turned down Tony Nicklinson's request for doctors to be allowed to help end his life without the risk of prosecution. One of the responses to this was that the issue should be decided upon by the british Parliament and the law regarding this issue settled by them and this I think is the height of lunacy. Ask the politicians to decide whether life can be taken? Why on earth would we want to ask a bunch of what are, generally speaking, a bunch of partisan morons such a question - the world gets madder on a day by day basis. Worse still, I have no confidence that a moral outcome would win the day, after all what generally comes out of Westminster is a pile of vote-winning response rather than making proper, integrity-laden, stands.

I have to laugh at the many who are claiming that the 'religious' (who on earth are they I wonder, I don't seem to meet them in my daily grind?) are hijacking and deciding on this issue. I have to weep at the many who would like to 'ease suffering' and engage in 'rationalising care' and end with the postscript of 'suffering families'.

Here are the words of one who suffers:

"The amount of people who tell my dad he's cruel keeping my mum alive! My mum isn't ventilated, or in any way kept alive artificially. She's fed and cleaned and turned (to stop bed sores). The only way to cause her death is to stop food and water, which sounds like a horrific and drawn out way to die. I'd hate to think politicians would have the power to do that to my mother. And I think they probably would do now that the cost cutting exercise in the NHS has now reached a stage where I'm actually being advised by medical personnel NOT to check my blood sugar! I've had to put up one hell of a fight just to get enought test strips to test my blood sugar at least once per day. This country's gone to the dogs... no, ignore that last statement, I have dogs, they're caring creatures!:

The decision made last week was the right decision for as many as can elect to take themselves off to Switzerland there are more for whom the decision would be made for them. The many who have no voice and for whom life would not continue should others have the right to decide for them. Those who struggle and who families tell me that removing them from this earth would be easier for them and would be 'cost-effective' too. It was the right decision because once we open the doors we provide a means of 'rationalising' costs and these and 'family sensitivities' are often the same result - let them die rather then help them to live as best they can until life is no more.

We live in a world which is dominated by freedom of choice, even when the exercise of our freedoms results in actions and attitudes that are, plain and simply, wrong. That some might rationalise, excuse or even explain with eloquent words and high-sounding philosophies how it would make them happy to engage in something, the outcome is wrong and should be stood against by society.

Sadly, the move towards a secular society means that the moral compass no longer reads true and this has nothing to do with the influence of the religious but the diminishing influence of those people of faith.

But once again, we find many who have a faith remaining tacet when they should be speaking up for the weaker and most vulnerable amongst us.