A debate on 'Assisted Dying' befell just lately in Westminster Corridor in response to a petition to Parliament (e-petition 653593). The wording of this petition was as follows:
“This petition calls on the Authorities to put aside parliamentary time for assisted dying to be totally debated within the Home of Commons and voted on by MPs. Terminally sick people who find themselves mentally wholesome and on the finish of their lives mustn’t undergo excruciatingly towards their will.
“We imagine that dying individuals within the UK ought to have the ability to search medical assist to finish their lives with dignity, by means of a protected and compassionate system with strict eligibility standards and safeguards. With out it, too many individuals take issues into their very own arms with tragic penalties. The Day by day Categorical and Dignity in Dying are backing Dame Esther Rantzen's name for a free vote. The time has come to provide us our final rights.”
Though the talk didn’t finish with a vote and the present authorities is impartial on whether or not the present legislation ought to be modified on this matter, the truth that the talk befell is indicative of the continued stress on the UK to comply with different jurisdictions reminiscent of The Netherlands, Belgium and Canada in legalizing the observe of “assisted dying”.
In contemplating the proposal to legalize “assisted dying” from a Christian perspective, two preliminary factors ought to be famous.
The primary is that the time period “assisted dying” is a misnomer. This can be a view that Nigel Biggar has helpfully put ahead in his ebook What's mistaken with rights?. Commenting on the “physician-assisted dying” language utilized by the Supreme Courtroom of Canada, Biggar writes that the language:
“…it obscures the truth that what’s being debated is the authorized permissibility of medical sufferers being assisted to finish their struggling by both deliberately killing themselves or having another person kill them upon request. Intentional self-killing is what we name “suicide” and intentional killing is “homicide” as a result of that’s what the phrases actually imply. Whether or not or not assisted suicide and the killing of one other on demand is morally right, it’s completely different from assisted passive dying. In any other case often known as palliative care, the place a affected person is given consolation and aid from ache within the dying course of.'
As Biggar additional notes:
“It’s true that there are instances the place palliative care can improve the chance of demise and thus have the impact of hastening demise. But it’s a commonplace of human expertise that we trigger issues we don’t intend. And generally, not less than, there is a crucial ethical and authorized distinction between the results we trigger deliberately, the results we danger however don’t intend, and the results we trigger unintentionally. It relies on whether or not I meant to kill you, or simply risked your life, or killed you accidentally. The mere presence or absence of intent might not in the end determine the ethical or authorized standing of my actions, however it’s however an essential issue. That is obscured by the selection to explain assisted suicide and on-demand killing as “support in dying”. The query earlier than the court docket involved not solely the authorized permissibility of offering support to the dying, however moderately whether or not to enshrine in legislation the duty of medical professionals to help sufferers to commit suicide or to kill them at their request.”
What Biggar says in these two quotes underscores the truth that we should abandon the language of legalizing “assisted dying.” Serving to somebody die as painlessly and peacefully as attainable will not be and by no means has been a criminal offense (in any other case your entire hospice motion could be unlawful). What we’re speaking about is the intentional killing of somebody. This could possibly be accomplished legally, however with out their consent (as occurred in Nazi Germany), during which case we’re speaking about execution (though as Nazis we’re speaking about euthanasia). Alternatively, it could possibly be accomplished with their consent, during which case we’re speaking about suicide as a result of it’s a case of somebody asking for assist to kill themselves.
Since we have now fortuitously not reached the stage the place anybody would advocate the execution of these deemed unfit to dwell (even when they’re harmless), we’re speaking about legalizing assisted suicide.
A second preliminary level to notice is that the argument now most used towards the legalization of assisted suicide is the “slide” argument, that it’s going to put stress on weak individuals to finish their lives once they wouldn’t in any other case accomplish that.
This level is made by disabled actress and incapacity rights campaigner Liz Carr in her new documentary Higher Off Lifeless during which he argues towards altering the present legislation. Because the BBC information web site explains: “Carr fears that altering the legislation for terminally sick individuals may finally result in those that are poor, disabled or mentally sick being allowed to die within the UK – and even they’ll really feel compelled to take action. .'
The actress says the prospect is “terrifying”.
He factors to Canada, the place the legislation was modified in 2016 to permit assisted dying for these whose demise was “fairly foreseeable” after which modified once more in 2021 to incorporate individuals with medical circumstances who had been “struggling excruciatingly”.
The article additionally quotes palliative care specialist Dr. Katherine Sleeman, who is alleged to be “involved about individuals who might really feel they’re a burden on their households”.
'Sufferers will say to me, “I actually don't need to go right into a nursing house, however I do know my household needs me to and I do know will probably be simpler for them, so I believe I'll say sure,” explains Dr Sleeman.
“Substitute the phrases 'going to a nursing house' for 'assisted demise' and I believe it's a really completely different image.”
The specialist believes that no assisted dying legislation might be fully protected and that some individuals who do not likely need to die will all the time “slip by means of the web”.
These concerns of Carr and Sleeman are very robust and are supported by the expertise of all nations the place assisted suicide has been legalized, not simply Canada. The proof suggests {that a} “slippery slope” will not be solely attainable, however just about inevitable.
However suppose, hypothetically, {that a} legislation was launched on this nation that legalized assisted suicide, however it was so constructed and enforced as to stop “slippage” and the one individuals who died had been those that actually and freely wished to die. Would such a legislation be acceptable from a Christian perspective?
I'd say the reply nonetheless must be “no”. Suicide as such is morally impermissible, even whether it is freely chosen. Because the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, it’s because suicide is opposite to the love one ought to have for God as one's creator, for oneself as God's creation, and for one's neighbor by violating the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20 : 13). To cite the Catechism:
“Everyone seems to be liable for his life earlier than the God who gave it to him. It’s God who stays the supreme Grasp of life. We’re obliged to gratefully obtain life and protect it for its honor and the salvation of our souls. We’re stewards, not homeowners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It's less than us to do away with him.
“Suicide is opposite to the pure inclination of the human being to protect and perpetuate his life. It’s critically opposite to righteous self-love. Likewise, it offends love of neighbor as a result of it unfairly disrupts the bonds of solidarity with household, nation, and different human societies to which we proceed to have obligations. Suicide is opposite to like for the residing God.”
The consequence of this, the Catechism states, is that “…an act or omission which by itself or deliberately causes demise so as to eradicate struggling constitutes homicide, which is critically opposite to the dignity of the human individual and to respect for the residing God, his Creator . An error of judgment which can be dedicated in good religion doesn’t change the character of this act of homicide, which should all the time be prohibited and excluded” (para. 2277).
The place taken by the Catechism could seem very harsh, however it’s the place that the Christian Church as a complete has held all through its historical past. So Augustine writes Metropolis of God that “we take the command 'Thou shalt not kill' to use to human beings, that’s, to different individuals and to ourselves.” For to kill oneself is to kill a human being.” This place additionally makes good theological sense. God gave our life on this earth as a present to us and thru us to our neighbors. It isn’t morally proper to refuse this reward. Because the Catechism says, opposite to the trendy secular concept that “my life is my very own,” which means our life “will not be ours to eliminate.”
Subsequently, since assisted suicide should be thought of a violation of the sixth commandment, Christians are sure to refuse to interact in it themselves, and to refuse to help different individuals to commit it, simply as they’d refuse to take part. different acts of illegal killing. Moreover, they have to do what they will to stop it, which suggests not simply declaring it mistaken or attempting to make sure it stays unlawful, however compassionately serving to individuals tempted to interact in it to know that it’s not needed . as a result of God's command to dwell on, nevertheless harsh it could appear subjectively, is a greater different. As human beings, we’re by no means able to accurately estimate God.