Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali: Promoting life rather than death
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali fears the most vulnerable could be put at risk if we go down the 'slippery slope' towards the taking of lives.Clarification on assisted suicide is expected from the Director of Public Prosecutions this Thursday. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali fears the most vulnerable could be put at risk if we go down the 'slippery slope' towards the taking of lives. He warns: 'Let us draw back from the brink. Let us not place ourselves in moral jeopardy, and let us continue to protect those who need our protection the most.'
Bishop Michael writes:
It is absolutely right for us to feel compassion for those who have a terminal or an incurable illness and for their near and dear ones who wish to relieve them of this burden, even if this means the death of the one who is ill.
Hard cases, however, make bad law. We should be very wary of changing the legal tradition of the Western world, based as it is on the Judaeo-Christian view of the human person, because of extreme situations which have been given massive media publicity and because there may be a few people in a coma from which a return to conscious life seems impossible.
It is natural for a person to feel helpless and hopeless when a terminal or incurable condition is first diagnosed but, given the right support by family, friends and the medical community, it is quite possible to come through this phase and to enjoy some quality of life and even its enrichment. As Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the Hospice movement, has said, "Our last days are not necessarily lost days ".
Not only can they be used to recapture the past and to strengthen relationships but also for contemplation and preparation. Again and again, people have told me how much they have learned about themselves and others at this time in their lives.
It is simply a mistake to emphasise the autonomy of the individual, especially at this point. It is relatedness that matters. Rather than seeing themselves as unwanted and alone, people, at this stage of life should feel themselves drawn into a circle of love and care where they will be made as comfortable as possible and valued for who they are.
It is not necessary always to be independent. Human beings depend upon one another at every stage of life and this one is no different. "Bear one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ", says St. Paul, and this is exactly what the Hospice movement has shown us can be done in the care of the terminally and incurably ill. Thank God for all the wonderful people involved in this work.
Another valuable lesson which this movement has taught us is that it is nearly always possible to manage pain and to make sure that patients do not suffer unnecessarily.
Palliative medicine is now highly developed and, whether in hospices or in pain clinics in hospitals, it tries to make sure that science is made to serve the care of people who are seriously ill and relieve them of as much pain as possible.
Such relief may, in fact, lengthen the life-span but even if it has the effect of hastening death, this is quite different from an intervention that intends the death of the patient.
One fear that people often have is that they will be 'officiously kept alive' rather than allowed to die peacefully. It should be clear that opposition to assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia is not about keeping people alive at all costs. It is right to respect people's wishes about not wanting medical treatment, the outcomes of which may be uncertain and which may be highly intrusive and uncomfortable.
Indeed, in certain cases, competent medical authorities may decide that it is inappropriate to provide medical treatment, though I believe that hydration and feeding should continue unless the means of doing this are judged to be disproportionate to any outcome.
We need to remember that those seeking assisted suicide are very few compared to the hundreds of thousands who die each year cared for by their loved ones, with the help of hospices, pain clinics and others in the caring professions.
There is, indeed, a slippery slope. It has been found, for instance, that the withdrawal of treatment in even the most extreme cases of coma, where the prospect of recovery is very remote, has led to such withdrawal when the situation is not so extreme. The Netherlands has not been notable for its success in confining the category of so-called 'eligible' cases for voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
In other words, there is 'creep' from terminal and incurable illness to serious disease and, then, perhaps, to ennui or depression, when a person no longer wants to live.
The Consultation document issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions lists, as a factor against prosecution, the fact that the 'suspect' might be a spouse, partner or close relative of the ‘victim' . This flies in the face of evidence that 70 per cent of elder abuse takes place within the family.
In factors which carry more weight in favour of prosecution, the document removes the category of belonging to a group, the principal purpose of which is... to allow another to commit suicide.
There must be questions of public safety at stake here. How are we to avoid undue influence, for personal or ideological reasons, over those who are at a most vulnerable stage in their lives?
There are questions, too, about how intention is to be established. How can we be sure that the person assisting the suicide was 'wholly motivated by compassion'? We must take account also of a ' vulnerable assister' who is told it is their duty of love and care to carry out the wishes of the person seeking to die. The experience of countries which have gone furthest in permitting assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia does not inspire confidence.
Once again, as a society and as individuals, we are poised to cross a bridge which will take us further from the Bible's teaching about the ultimate dignity of human beings which cannot be harmed by other humans, except in the most tightly-controlled circumstances of self-defence or of public order.
This is not just about the possibility of making a moral 'mistake' but of moral culpability, of sinning against our neighbour who is, like us, made in God's image.
The Church's task here is not just to guard the consciences of its own members but to point society to its moral and spiritual basis. It is on this that a cohesive view of national life rests, and it is this which will save us from the fragmentation and insularity between different communities which we have seen in recent years.
If we do not have a common view about the dignity and sanctity of human life, what else can we have in common?
There is an alternative to the vociferous campaign to legalise assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. This involves using all our science to relieve suffering. It means bearing one another's burdens and building a society based not on atomistic individualism but on a strong sense of inter-dependence and on the importance of relationships. It requires that we should value the person at every stage of life and be willing in humility to serve them and to learn from them.
Let us draw back from the brink. Let us not place ourselves in moral jeopardy and let us continue to protect those who need our protection the most.
