Rector’s Reflections
Thursday 21st November 2024
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill
In yesterday’s reflections, I outlined a few of the reasons why some Christians are happy with the provisions of this bill. However, there are also arguments against the bill, and I shall look at some of these today.
To begin with, there would be those who would argue that suicide is always wrong, whatever the circumstances. Let us remind ourselves that while the bill uses the phrase “assisted dying”, it is in fact talking about creating a process which provides an officially approved way for a terminally ill adult to commit suicide. Yes, the adult in question “is reasonably expected to die within six months”. Yes, the circumstances are profoundly distressing and our hearts go out to all affected – to the individual themselves, to their family and to the medical professionals who are caring for them. But it is still suicide. And Suicide is still suicide, whether or not it is sanctioned by the State by means of an Act of Parliament.
The weight of Christian opinion down the centuries has considered suicide to be wrong, and a serious sin against God. It has been considered to be a sin against God, who has created and redeemed life, and a breach of one of the Ten Commandments (“You shall not kill” – although this can also be translated as “You shall not murder”, and some might argue that “suicide” is not the same thing as “murder”.) However, although the weight of the Christian tradition has been against suicide, I should add that there has often been considerable pastoral flexibility in practice, recognising that the degree of moral culpability involved in any particular act of suicide will vary enormously from case to case. Nonetheless, the traditional Christian position is that suicide is a serious sin against God.
This sort of argument depends of course on whether or not one accepts the premise that God exists and our life belongs to God. What if one doesn’t believe this?
Well, one might still argue against the bill simply on the grounds that it is trying to double guess the future. It is assuming that because a “person is reasonably expected to die within six months”, this is in fact what is going to happen. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases, a medical prognosis given by a suitably experienced and qualified professional is more likely than not to be correct. Statistically speaking, if several medical professionals agree that a person is going to die within six months, they are likely to be right. However, there are always exceptions. The patient might of course die before the six months is up. However, they might also be still alive in 2 or 3 years’ time. And it is also possible that they might recover, or be able to experience a sufficient quality of life for many years to come, before the end finally comes. No one can predict the future with total accuracy, and as the saying goes, while there’s life, there’s hope.
One might also argue against the bill in terms of its consequences. In effect, it promotes suicide as an acceptable choice for the terminally ill. Well, it might be an acceptable choice for the individual concerned, but what about the impact on their friends and families? How would you or I feel if we knew that someone very close to us had deliberately chosen to end their lives prematurely? They might not even have shared their plans with us beforehand. Suicide can have an enormous psychological impact on the well-being of the survivors. The bill fails to consider adequately the impact of the decisions we take on the well-being of those closest to us.
And what of the impact of the bill on the medical professionals charged with responsibility for caring for the terminally ill? Yes, the bill provides various safeguards. But how will it work in practice? Resources are stretched, and I suspect that not everyone has access to appropriate end of life care, for example in a hospice or other specialist environment. Will the effect of the bill be to allow “the system” (ie the NHS) to kill off terminally ill patients in situations where there are neither the resources nor the desire to care for them properly? Will we ever be able to trust a Doctor again? Or will our faith in Doctors be strengthened by the bill, because it provides for a robust process surrounded by safeguards, both of which are currently lacking?
There are other arguments as well which can be made against the provisions of the bill. On the other hand, as we have seen, there are also arguments in favour of the bill. What – if anything- might one say by way of conclusion? We shall look at this in tomorrow’s reflections.