Second Sunday before Advent
Listen to audio version
As I’m sure you will have heard, MPs will have to vote in a few days’ time on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This is essentially the same measure that the Commons voted on in 2015 and rejected by a substantial majority. There is the feeling that voting will be very different this time, with a large Labour majority, but that is a little uncertain. It will be a free vote on the day. There are many Labour MPs opposed to assisted dying and quite a few Conservative MPs in favour. No doubt many will vote as a result of some personal family experience they have had, perhaps watching the last days of a suffering loved one. Some will vote on the basis of their religious principles.
One feels that Christians should have something to say about the proposed Bill, but don’t think for a moment that there is a single Christian view. Most Christians might be opposed to the idea of people being permitted to take their own life, but former Archbishop Rowan Williams said ‘there is a very strong compassionate case’ for physician-assisted dying, and his predecessor George Carey has also supported the Bill. Undoubtedly this element of compassion will be in the forefront of the minds of those who have to vote.
So to be clear what we are talking about: a Bill to allow people who are adjudged to be terminally ill and within six months of death, to be supplied with medication that will end their life. They will administer the dose themselves; doctors will not be expected to take the step that will end the patient’s life.
There will be strict requirements attached to the Bill, for people wishing to end their lives in this way. Here are some of them:
- They must be resident of England and Wales and be registered with a GP for at least 12 months
- They must have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure
- They must be expected to die within six months
- They must make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die
- Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person is eligible
- A High Court judge must hear from at least one of the doctors and can also question the dying person, or anyone else they consider appropriate. There must be a further 14 days after the judge has made the ruling
Until 1961 it was illegal to attempt to take one’s own life, and those who did so were often refused Christian burial. But in our much more secular age, the concept of God rarely comes into such debates, and I think this is one reason why the vote will be a lot closer than nine years ago, with a huge number of new and younger MPs now reflecting a less-believing society.
Of course, what we think about God and his judgments comes mostly from the bible. I asked a quite senior clergyman recently – without warning – where was the biblical injunction not to take one’s own life, and was rather surprised when he struggled to give me a clear, quick answer. I have often read the opening Sentences at a Funeral which includes the words “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” Most Christians would consider that life is God-given; that we are created in the image of God, and that it is not ours to end prematurely, whatever the circumstances. My senior clergyman did point to the sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” One has always considered that to refer mainly to the killing of others, but what about killing oneself?
An interesting article in the publication Christianity points out that there several examples in the bible of people attempt or succeed in killing themselves, but there is no clear-cut condemnation of suicide. The tradition of Christian opposition to suicide came to prominence with Augustine of Hippo, who certainly interpreted the commandment ‘do not kill’ as applying to killing oneself as well as others. So suicide came to be seen as a sin, with those who took their life being denied a Christian burial. In my ministry, I have always taken the view that anyone who did kill themselves did so ‘with the balance of their mind disturbed’ – as the saying used to go – and therefore should be afforded compassion. There is a verse in the First Letter of Peter which says that between the crucifixion and the resurrection, Jesus went to speak to the spirits in prison, and one wonderful poem by Ruth Etchells imagines that he went to save Judas Iscariot after his suicide.
And as for ‘Do not kill’ – what about the numerous so-called Christian countries who have had capital punishment on their statute books, and some still do?
One phrase that you may have heard me use in public prayers quite often, is that people everywhere will have ‘respect for human life.’ The Evangelical Alliance have called for Christians to oppose Assisted Dying on grounds of protecting ‘the inherent dignity of human life.’ There is certainly nothing wrong with that sentiment, but I am sure many a distressed relative, watching a loved one in the last agonising days of a painful illness, will ask where is the inherent dignity in that human life?
If we say ‘no’ to any idea of assisted dying, we are turning a blind eye to the practice that has gone on for many decades, of doctors administering ever higher levels of morphine to those in their last days, to ease pain and distress, knowing that there will be one ultimate dose that ends the person’s life. So a compassionate response to suffering leads to a killing, in effect. It has become known as the Doctrine of Double Effect – a well-established legal principle which states that a morally sound action with an unintended negative side effect is permissible. But doctors are more reluctant to rely on this ever since the Harold Shipman murders. One argument in favour of the Leadbeater Bill is to end the pretence and let doctors do openly what they once did covertly. However, doctors, as we noted earlier, will not be forced to administer the injection with which patients end their lives under the Bill, but many are reluctant to be involved in the process at all, and there will be no compunction for them to have to be involved.
One forceful argument against the Assisted-Dying proposal is the so-called Slippery Slope Concern – that the passing of the Bill will inevitably be the thin end of a very thick wedge. Advocates of the Bill always stipulate that the measure will apply only to adults with mental capacity and with six months to live. Yet in almost every country where Assisted Dying has been introduced the provision has been extended, first beyond six months and then to people who aren’t terminally ill. Indeed, at a seminar on this subject I attended at Malvern Baptist Church recently, we heard of the case of a sick and disabled woman in Canada who had Social Services, or whatever the body is in Canada, to advise her about the installation of a stair lift in her home. To her horror and astonishment, she was asked, “And have you thought about euthanasia as an alternative?” How long would it be before disabled, elderly and infirm people were being encouraged to end their lives; or even younger people with depression or severe mental illness – and how many would consider that as a favour to overstressed relatives and carers, or to society in general? We certainly go back to the Evangelical Alliance’s assertion that we should at all times ‘protect the inherent dignity of human life.’
There are many other aspects of the issue that time does not allow us to consider here. But one view propounded by some Christians is to say that suffering has spiritual significance and can be a way to grow in virtue, patience, or trust in God. Christ’s own suffering and death on the cross is seen as the ultimate example of how suffering can have redemptive value. I can imagine some responses to this view would be to say ‘that may be how you would think, but don’t wish it on me.’ But there are touching instances of people who have refused some extra treatment or comfort in their last days, believing that this is their lot, whether from a religious perspective or not, and that it is to be endured to its natural end.
Our seminar at Malvern Baptist Church was led by a local retired-GP: Michael Harper, who spent some years as medical director of St. Michael’s Hospice in Herefordshire. He pointed out that were the hospice movement to be better funded, then far more people would be able to spend their last days in a more loving, caring and comfortable environment. So many people have had their last days enhanced by hospice care; so many have found a new and positive approach to death. Dr Harper suggested that were everyone to have access to this very personal palliative care, there would be far fewer calls for assisted Dying. The lead bishop for health care, Sarah Mullally, the Bishop of London, has said “We strongly back action to ensure that our hospices receive the level of state funding that they are so badly lacking at present.”
We shall not be voting in Parliament when the Bill comes to the House of Commons, but we can pray for those who will be wrestling with the pro’s and con’s of all these issues. You could perhaps write to your MP before the 29th November. Bishop Mullally also noted the “very short period of time being given to the most complex and emotive of all issues.”
Jesus said, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.”