A Natural End to The Human Experience?

Always Worth Saying, Going Postal
Part of the human experience.
Beyond death,
Unknown Pixabay artist
Public domain

On the other week’s BBC Question Time from Rotherham, when the subject turned to ‘assisted dying’, a gentleman in the audience commented politics and religion do not mix and religion should be kept out of this discussion. His exact words; “We’re a secular society. Religion has to be taken out of it completely. Religion and politics don’t mix, I think that, I mean, I’m very pro-choice on a lot of things. I think that people should be allowed to choose how they meet their end. I think it should have lots of limitations, absolutely. I think this should have happened ten years ago. I think this is a long time in coming.’

With a placeless accent not of South Yorkshire, the well-dressed contributor in a light-striped cotton jacket and with an odd insect-shaped affinity badge on his left lapel, aroused suspicion. The lobbying behind the pro-euthanasia agenda is organised through connected charities and limited companies called Dignity in Dying and Compassion in Dying. On their website, they claim ‘informed, evidence-based debate is of prime importance in the discussion surrounding assisted dying.’

They make the following offer, ‘Should you wish someone from our organisation to speak at your event we will do our best to accommodate you with our network of staff, local activists and voluntary speakers. Please complete the form below, and we will be in touch to identify a speaker for your upcoming event.’

On the same programme, two ladies sat together draped in Free Palestine paraphernalia and monologued regarding the situation in the Middle East. One could barely manage English. The cynical viewer may wonder about their connection with Rotherham other than to be parachuted in by the BBC to make clankingly partisan comments in tune with the priorities of the London media-political-legal bubble. Likewise the ‘member of the public’ shilling for euthanasia.

Given the politicians on the QT panel included a liar and a cheat (Douglas Alexander – expenses scandal) and a liar, cheat and pervert (Dominic Green, expenses, MeToo, sacked for lying about Westminster computer porn), a question is begged. As the ‘assisted dying’ debate is about conscience, choice, morality, and this life and the life beyond, should the matter be decided by the House of Liars and Thieves (aided by un-declared lobbyists in TV audiences)? As a counterbalance, the Archbishop of Westminster holds a view. We will allow him his say.

Rather than being smuggled in disguise into a fake BBC audience to be fed by Fake Fiona Bruce, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, wrote a pastoral letter to be read out at church services last weekend. Before we continue, in these strange times, as with the BBC, so the archbishop sees the need to parachute in. In his case, clergy from the Copper Belt. Our parish’s extra priest is more than welcome but, shall we say, his pronunciation is ‘improving’. Likewise, if Puffins find my flowery prose, misplaced commas, bad spelling and mangled gerundives off-putting, they can read the original pastoral letter here.

Those listening in the pews heard that the previous Wednesday, a bill introduced to Parliament proposed a change in the law to permit assisted suicide. The debate will continue for a number of months, both in society and in Parliament, before a definitive vote is held. A spotlight is being placed on crucial questions regarding the dignity of human life and the ‘care and protection afforded by our society to every human being.’

The 78-year-old Merseyside-born prelate went on to identify three key points.

1. Be careful what you wish for

The archbishop claimed the final draft of the bill would undoubtedly be carefully crafted and would outline specific and narrow conditions under which it would be legal to intentionally assist in ending someone’s life. However, he countered it is also important to consider the evidence from every country where similar laws have been enacted. The conditions for allowing life-ending actions tend to expand over time, making assisted suicide and euthanasia more accepted and accessible.

In this country, there will be assurances of solid and dependable safeguards, though elsewhere this is not the reality. While some may find relief in this proposed legal change, it will also cause significant fear and anxiety for many, for instance, those who are vulnerable or disabled. This proposal is likely only the beginning, and it is a path best avoided. In his words, ‘What is now proposed will not be the end of the story.’ Furthermore, ‘It is a story better not begun.’

2. A right to die can become a duty to die

According to the Archbishop, a law forbidding an action serves as a strong deterrent while a law allowing it can shift attitudes. This often leads to greater acceptance and encouragement of that action. Once assisted suicide is legalised, a fundamental protection of human life is lost. Those nearing death may feel growing pressure — whether from others or from themselves — to end their lives, seeing it as a way to relieve their family’s perceived burden, avoid pain, or preserve an inheritance.

Cardinal Nichols recognized many people fear the possibility of prolonged suffering and loss of dignity. However, such suffering can be alleviated. Therefore, part of this discussion should focus on the importance of improving palliative care and hospice services, ensuring everyone can spend their final days surrounded by loved ones and compassionate healthcare professionals. In reality, this is what represents ‘dying with dignity’. In contrast, the proposed radical legal changes risk shifting the role of medical professionals from one of caring to one of ending life.

Puffins who struggle with the faith, or profess none, might be encouraged to address the Cardinal’s third point while keeping the following in mind. In place of God, consider the idea of a higher moral purpose to our being other than the conveniences or inconveniences of existing.

3. Being forgetful of God belittles our humanity

The issues raised by this bill touch the core of how we understand our lives, our humanity, and our existence. For the Archbishop and other people of faith — who make up the majority of the world’s population — the fundamental belief is that life is a gift from the Creator. Our lives come from God and will return to God. The Archbishop quotes the Old Testament (Job 1:21): “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord”. Ignoring or denying this severs our humanity from its divine origin and purpose, leaving us adrift without clear direction or purpose – as if we can define important truths based only on the changing moods of society.

The essence of this faith is that every human being is created in God’s image and likeness, which is the foundation of our unique dignity. Human suffering is not meaningless and does not take away that dignity. It is part of the human experience, a journey the Christ of the crucifixion himself embraced, leading humanity to its ultimate glory through suffering and death. We are all too aware suffering can drive people to extreme mental anguish. Sometimes this even leads them to, without blame, take their own lives when they are not in full control of their thoughts or will. However, this proposed law is different.

It seeks to grant someone of sound mind and will the right to act against a fundamental truth: life is not ours to dispose of as we see fit. Such a notion undermines the foundations of trust, dignity, and shared values supporting a stable society.

In conclusion, Cardinal Nichols encouraged us all to play our part in the forthcoming debate. Write to our MPs. Have discussions with family, friends and colleagues. Pray, and remember to be careful what we wish for, that the right to die can become a duty to die and that being forgetful of God belittles our humanity.
 

© Always Worth Saying 2024