To have compassion for the suffering is of course a great virtue. Few reading this letter would not seek to support those who struggle in the midst of illness both prayerfully and practically. To care for the sick and the dying is a charitable act, but can the same be said for ending their lives?
The reality is that the Bill presents the greatest threat to human dignity for decades. There are two principal objections to it. The first objection is that it is a breach of the sixth commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Life is the ultimate grace and the sanctity of life is thus protected. The taking of life has therefore been an exceptional act, reserved for criminals and for a time of just war (although some will make no exceptions at all). At no point has it been deemed acceptable in scripture or through the Christian centuries to take life away from those who are sick.
The second principal objection is the negative affect which assisted suicide will have on the living and especially the sick who, if the Bill is passed, will live with the understanding that their lives are of less value than those who are physically fit. The risk is that many will begin to feel a burden to their families and to society and will seek to relieve that burden by having their lives ended. The risk that those close to the sick will encourage them to seek this solution is a real one for people do not necessarily act unselfishly. It is also true that those countries which have already placed similar laws on their statute books quickly seek to add to the list those who are disabled and mentally ill. Canada will include the mentally ill from 2027 and Belgium is seeking to extend its provision to children. In none of the countries which have passed similar legislation are the numbers small. Nobody is thinking about ‘exceptional circumstances’, but rather a ‘new way of doing things’. From previous experience there is a progression in comparable matters from ‘exceptional’ to ‘normal’ to ‘routine’ and then on to ‘near obligatory’.
This is not to suggest that a problem doesn’t exist. The suffering of many is great, but parliament would be offering a greater service to those who are struggling by improving palliative care in hospices, hospitals and in the community. Church leaders are at the moment writing to MP’s to encourage them to vote against the legislation and to seek a future in which the sick and suffering are valued and supported rather than put out of their misery. If you feel able I would encourage you to do likewise.
The following quotations express well (and better) the points I have made above.
Arguments in favour of assisted suicide (because that is what it is) often focus on human autonomy, on the faculties and abilities that an individual enjoys or on an individual’s sense of personal worth. These are important considerations, but they must not usurp the intrinsic, God-given, value of a person’s life.
Removing or eroding this fundamental principle would not only have a detrimental effect on many aspects of the law, health and social care and on community cohesion, but would also overturn centuries of medical practice based on the Hippocratic Oath. This ancient covenant between doctors and their patients states that doctors are there to heal, not to kill.
The Bishop of St. Albans
The evidence from every single country in which such a law has been passed is clear, that the circumstances in which the taking of a life is permitted are widened and widened, making assisted suicide and medical killing, or euthanasia, more and more available and accepted.
Be careful what you wish for. This proposed change in the law may be a source of relief to some. But it will bring great fear and trepidation to many, especially those who have vulnerabilities and those living with disabilities. What is now proposed will not be the end of the story. It is a story better not begun.
The Archbishop of Westminster
The complete newsletter may be downloaded here:
Image 'Christ in Judgement' by Kelly Kiernan on Unsplash