Today's Statement on the report of the Commission for Assisted Dying from the Church of England from the Bishop of Carlisle is an excellent offering and shows the integrity that I expect (hope or long for) from within our denomination.
The 'Commission on Assisted Dying' is a self-appointed group that excluded from its membership anyone with a known objection to assisted suicide. In contrast, the majority of commissioners, appointed personally by Lord Falconer, were already in favour of changing the law to legitimise assisted suicide. Lord Falconer has, himself, been a leading proponent for legitimising assisted suicide, for some years.
The commission undertook a quest to find effective safeguards that could be put in place to avoid abuse of any new law legitimising assisted suicide. Unsurprisingly, given the commission's composition, it has claimed to have found such safeguards.
Unlike the commissioners, we are unconvinced that the commission has been successful in its quest. It has singularly failed to demonstrate that vulnerable people are not placed at greater risk under its proposals than is currently the case under present legislation. In spite of the findings of research that it commissioned, it has failed adequately to take into account the fact that in all jurisdictions where assisted suicide or euthanasia is permitted, there are breaches of safeguards as well as notable failures in monitoring and reporting.
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.
Put simply, the most effective safeguard against abuse is to leave the law as it is. What Lord Falconer has done is to argue that it is morally acceptable to put many vulnerable people at increased risk so that the aspirations of a small number of individuals, to control the time, place and means of their deaths, might be met. Such a calculus of risk is unnecessary and wholly unacceptable.
I include also the CofE's 'Opposing suicide':
"The Church of England is opposed to any change in the law, or medical practice, to make assisted suicide permissible or acceptable.
Suffering, the Church maintains, must be met with compassion, commitment to high-quality services and effective medication; meeting it by assisted suicide is merely removing it in the crudest way possible.
In its March 2009 paper Assisted Dying/Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia, the Church acknowledged the complexity of the issues while explaining its position, noting that the compassion that motivates those who seek change equally motivates the Church's opposition to change.
In January 2012, the Church reitterated its views by responding to a report from the Commission on Assisted Dying with a statement from the Bishop of Carlisle.
Principles behind the Church's position
• Personal autonomy and the protection of life are both important principles that are often complementary but sometimes compete.
• Personal autonomy must be principled and not without regard to others.
• Protection of life should take priority when there is a conflict between the two.
• When protection of life is impossible that does not undermine these principles.
• Every human being is uniquely and equally valuable, hence human rights are built on the foundation of the 'right to life', as is much of the criminal code.
• An obligation on society, doctors and nurses, to take life or to assist in the taking of life would create a new and unwelcome role for society.
Assisted suicide in practice
There would be problems ensuring that any law permitting assisted suicide would be sufficiently safe-guarded against abuse.
Elastic interpretations of the law: any law, however tightly formulated, would have to be 'interpreted'; doctors would vary in their approach and consistency would be impossible to achieve with 'wider' interpretations of the law becoming acceptable.
Hidden pressures on patients and staff: even with safeguards, it would be impossible to ensure that no vulnerable, terminally ill patient would feel under moral, economic or social pressure to accept assisted suicide.
A redefinition of healthcare: trust in the health service is crucial to the health and well-being of individuals and of the population; to introduce assisted suicide into the NHS (the only way the 'right' would be universally accessible) would be to change fundamentally the nature of that trust.
The doctor and nurse/patient relationship would change: the nature of this relationship would change fundamentally and irrevocably if assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia were to become part of the 'treatment' that health professionals were to be able to offer their patients.
The effects on palliative care: assisted suicide would require large resources, with no guarantee it would be safely and fairly administered, putting further pressure on the already under-resourced psychological, social, family and spiritual support services needed to address all of the needs of terminally-ill people in a full palliative care-package.
Hallelujah!
Showing posts with label mercy killing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mercy killing. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Being 'In Control'
The last forty-eight hours has featured many radio broadcasts and a few discussions on the knotty subject of killing the terminally ill. Sorry I meant of course terminating the terminally ill. No wait, I meant 'euthanising'. No, that's not right either, is it?
Got it! The last forty-eight hours has featured many radio broadcasts and a few discussions on the knotty subject of 'assisted suicide' and I have to admit that I am struggling with it for a number of reasons and at a number of levels.
One common justification of the the need and the act goes something like this: "If the person was a dog you'd do the right thing and put them down!" Now this is very true, but of course what we are saying here is that those who are terminally ill become sub-human and are to be regarded on a par with lower-level animals. So, become terminally ill and cease to be human? Sorry, but my faith, intellect and compassion can't go along with this - dignity is surely lost here, not afforded?
The next justification surrounds 'quality of life'. Which is sad because for many heading down this path seem to confuse quality with the ability, or potential, to earn or otherwise 'contribute' to society. It's sad because there are many people who will never work, never gain qualifications, play sports and never engage in a host of other stuff and yet they have a quality of life and they contribute to the lives of others.
I watched a young man who suffered spinal damage and yet teaches rugger from his wheelchair and has quality of life, influences others and is an inspiration. In an interview the reporter asked about another person, almost as badly damaged, who had opted to die. The man's assessment was that each chooses their own path and that he felt it had been wrong, but he wasn't that bloke.
I have seen severely broken people who although unable to communicate conventionally did communicate and although they'd never walk caused others to be moved and their very presence brought out something rather precious in those around them. Quality of life? Contributing and making a difference? Guess it depends on what you're looking for and what you want to see.
The issue of control is the biggest. "I want to control my life and decide when I die and decide how much trouble there is in my life and I, I, I, I (si si senora! - Rugger playing gene kicked in - sorry). "I want to be in control of my life and this means I can control when I come into the world and when I leave it." These words from someone suffering a terminal disease indicate the level of panic and distress, impotence and lack of rational thinking for none of us control when we come into the world, for we cannot determine when the plan and sexual endeavours of our parents took place but we can decide spiritually (see John1. 12 - 13: However, to all who received him, those believing in his name, he gave authority to become God's children, who were born, not merely in a genetic sense, nor from lust, nor from man’s desire, but from the will of God who were born, not merely in a genetic sense, nor from lust, nor from man's desire, but from the will of God.)
Unless we act against it, life continues until life ends and although it may not be an easy path it is still life and if one or more of these exists:
* The ability to engage with others,
* To listen to great music, books or other audio material
* To watch films, see paintings, images and people that touch us,
* To read, write or do both
* To be cognisant (and this is a problem with vegetative states - although now it seems there is awareness and even here things aren't as we presumed).
Then surely life exists! It might not be the easiest, most comfortable, as planned, in-control, life - but it is by any rational definition 'life'!
Now, thanks to the Commission os Assisted Dying (I suppose Commission on Killing the Ill would have caused a bit of an upset - there's something about some names that just doesn't work!) whose view is that if you have less than a year to live then you can get permission (two doctors signatures) to end your life. You have to be of sound mind and apparently do it yourself, it can't be administered (so you have to do it before you lose motor functions MD sufferers take note!)
What we have proposed here is not a last ditch act but a first shot desertion!
Where there is life there is hope and where there is God there is life - now have to go and join these ends. Feel free to draw more lines or make connections for me as I'd really like some other input from those I might otherwise never engage with.
Pax
Got it! The last forty-eight hours has featured many radio broadcasts and a few discussions on the knotty subject of 'assisted suicide' and I have to admit that I am struggling with it for a number of reasons and at a number of levels.
One common justification of the the need and the act goes something like this: "If the person was a dog you'd do the right thing and put them down!" Now this is very true, but of course what we are saying here is that those who are terminally ill become sub-human and are to be regarded on a par with lower-level animals. So, become terminally ill and cease to be human? Sorry, but my faith, intellect and compassion can't go along with this - dignity is surely lost here, not afforded?
The next justification surrounds 'quality of life'. Which is sad because for many heading down this path seem to confuse quality with the ability, or potential, to earn or otherwise 'contribute' to society. It's sad because there are many people who will never work, never gain qualifications, play sports and never engage in a host of other stuff and yet they have a quality of life and they contribute to the lives of others.
I watched a young man who suffered spinal damage and yet teaches rugger from his wheelchair and has quality of life, influences others and is an inspiration. In an interview the reporter asked about another person, almost as badly damaged, who had opted to die. The man's assessment was that each chooses their own path and that he felt it had been wrong, but he wasn't that bloke.
I have seen severely broken people who although unable to communicate conventionally did communicate and although they'd never walk caused others to be moved and their very presence brought out something rather precious in those around them. Quality of life? Contributing and making a difference? Guess it depends on what you're looking for and what you want to see.
The issue of control is the biggest. "I want to control my life and decide when I die and decide how much trouble there is in my life and I, I, I, I (si si senora! - Rugger playing gene kicked in - sorry). "I want to be in control of my life and this means I can control when I come into the world and when I leave it." These words from someone suffering a terminal disease indicate the level of panic and distress, impotence and lack of rational thinking for none of us control when we come into the world, for we cannot determine when the plan and sexual endeavours of our parents took place but we can decide spiritually (see John1. 12 - 13: However, to all who received him, those believing in his name, he gave authority to become God's children, who were born, not merely in a genetic sense, nor from lust, nor from man’s desire, but from the will of God who were born, not merely in a genetic sense, nor from lust, nor from man's desire, but from the will of God.)
Unless we act against it, life continues until life ends and although it may not be an easy path it is still life and if one or more of these exists:
* The ability to engage with others,
* To listen to great music, books or other audio material
* To watch films, see paintings, images and people that touch us,
* To read, write or do both
* To be cognisant (and this is a problem with vegetative states - although now it seems there is awareness and even here things aren't as we presumed).
Then surely life exists! It might not be the easiest, most comfortable, as planned, in-control, life - but it is by any rational definition 'life'!
Now, thanks to the Commission os Assisted Dying (I suppose Commission on Killing the Ill would have caused a bit of an upset - there's something about some names that just doesn't work!) whose view is that if you have less than a year to live then you can get permission (two doctors signatures) to end your life. You have to be of sound mind and apparently do it yourself, it can't be administered (so you have to do it before you lose motor functions MD sufferers take note!)
What we have proposed here is not a last ditch act but a first shot desertion!
Where there is life there is hope and where there is God there is life - now have to go and join these ends. Feel free to draw more lines or make connections for me as I'd really like some other input from those I might otherwise never engage with.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)