Not Dead Yet UK - An Introduction to the Death Debate

Today I want to broach a sensitive, controversial topic, which regular readers may have detected undercurrents of previously, and those who know me personally will be aware of my views on. Assisted dying - different from but linked to euthanasia, whether voluntary or forced. 

On Friday the 16th of January (two days from now at the time of writing), Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill will go to its second committee stage in the House of Lords. I believe - along with many others - that this Bill should not be 'edited', or approved, but deleted, ignored, and firmly opposed.

My aim in this post is not to provide a comprehensive case against assisted dying (or euthanasia, or suicide), but to explain why, this Friday, I've added my voice to Not Dead Yet UK's 'Thunderclap'. Not Dead Yet UK (Henceforth NDYUK) is a small UK organisation, primarily composed of disabled people, which firmly opposes Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill, and is involved in campainging for public awareness. In contrast to 'Dignity in Dying', a major group supporting the Bill, NDYUK is a small organisation, and lacks major celebrity endorsements. For some great observations on the Assisted dying debate, my friend Ian Paul has a helpful round-up of articles on his blog.

So why should you listen to what NDYUK are saying, and why should you consider joining the 'Thunderclap' to oppose Lord Falconer's Bill this Friday? I have a few reasons.

Firstly, and most simply, the Bill is flawed. Whilst the Bill attempts to not legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide, it is not clear exactly how it cannot be modified later, or in what way 'assisted dying' is different from assisted suicide. As an example - of a modern, diverse, Western nation - Holland legalised euthanasia in 2007, and there has been a constant increase in the number of deaths from it. This was not the intention of the law - intended to alleviate suffering - and led to a surprising internvation from a Dutch ethicist when Lord Falconer's Bill was proposed. Professor Theo Boer, an ethicist who has reviewed over 4,000 euthanasia cases in Holland, had three simple words of advice for Britain:

"Don't Go There"

Prof. Boer made these comments last year, and they have gone largely unnoticed. The linked article notes that, for once, this is a slippery slope (as I've noted before in the controversy over 'post-birth abortion'), observing that "He said that he was among those people who were initially convinced that the Netherlands could effectively regulate a system of euthanasia but who, he admitted "were wrong - terribly wrong, in fact"". 12 years later, Prof. Boer issues his warning as Lord Falconer's Bill pushes us in the same direction.

Secondly, there are the hinted-at-above issues surrounding suicide, euthanasia, and assisted dying. Suicide is defined as "the action of killing one's-self intentionally". Assisted dying is apparently when "a terminally ill, mentally competent adult, making the choice of their own free will and after meeting strict legal safeguards, takes prescribed medication which will end their life". To this blogger, the difference seems like one of semantics. Both imply a choice ending in an action. The latter ('assisted dying') adds the caveats of terminially ill, mentally competent, and strict legal safeguards. In my understanding, 'choice' is the watchword, something which Giles Fraser (with whom I often disagree but often very much appreciate), made a powerful observation(readers should note I disagree with Fraser's 'religious stance', for the reasons outlined above in some of the linked articles from Ian's blog):

"When the moral history of the 21st century comes to be written, I predict we will look back with horror at how the word choice became a sort of cuckoo in the nest, driving out all other values. This week, in an editorial, the BMJ decided that patient choice now trumps the Hippocratic oath. The moral language of the supermarket has become the moral currency that is accepted. Which is why, for me, assisted dying is the final triumph of market capitalism: we have become consumers in everything, even when it comes to life and death. And as history demonstrates, the losers in this equation are always going to be the most vulnerable"

Thirdly, and perhaps most important from my perspective, NDYUK is predominantly led by disabled people, who are the most likely to be affected by this bill. My theological studies, particularly at postgraduate level, have challenged me to profoundly rethink my attitude to disability and people with disabilities. 'Dignity in Dying' makes much on their website of the celebrities, academics and other notable people who endorse their work be being patrons - which leads me to think that NDYUK might be worth listening to. I do, it must be admitted, have a natural inclination towards the underdog. But this comes about because of my views - linked to the Doctrine of the Image of God - about the inherent dignity of all people, disabled or not. For me, the fact that a number of disabled individuals are fighting this bill (when, as has been noted, it will affect them the most), is significant. Giles Frasers observation above, in line with the experience of Prof. Boer, that "as history demonstrates, the losers in this equation are always going to be the most vulnerable", resonates with me. I'm reminded of the powerful picture of the heart of Justice that God has, which we see in Psalm 10:17-18;

"You, LORD, hear the desire of the afflicted;
you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
defending the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that mere earthly mortals
will never again strike terror"

The point of this post, before I got somewhat distracted by the technicalities of the issue (which are vitally important, and I would encourage you to read Ian's aforementioned roundup of posts, and his own post, False Steps in the Assisted Dying Debate) is to invite you to do something. I've written before about the dangers of slacktivism - and if all you do is read or even like this blog post, you have (and be extension I have) done pretty much nothing. Can I encourage you at the very least to take part in Not Dead Yet UK's Thunderclap? You can find out more about it here, or read about what a Thunderclap is on my tech blog. Going on, do read up about this debate, and about related issues of disability, theology, mental illness and ethics. I've got some resources below if you are interested. Do, perhaps, also consider writing to a peer (details here) on this, and other issues.

_____________

Thanks for reading, and I hope this has been helpful and thought provoking. I would encourage you to connect with Not Dead Yet UK's Thunderclap tomorrow, and I'd love to connect with you via Facebook and Twitter. As ever, please do leave a comment on this blog, and feel very free to like or share it.

_____________

One brilliant book on ethics around this sort of thing is Prof. John Wyatt's 'Matters of Life and Death', which is a very helpful overview. A few books to recommend on the topic of disability and the church include Gordon Temple and Lin Ball's 'Enabling Church', a helpful guide to practical action, Roy McCloughry's superb 'The Enabled Life', reflecting on his experience of living with a disability, and theologically reflecting on this, and the very helpful 'Disability in the Christian Tradition: A Reader', which is a fundamental resource.

My friend James Mumford wrote a bold article, "Abort it and try again" in response to comments made by Richard Dawkins about the unborn with disabilities, and James' article contains some great thought on disability issues. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great German theologian/pastor offers a perspective on a 'worthless' life, which is challenging to our contemporary way of thinking.

You may also be interested in this post reflecting on The Stavanger International Conference on Disability, Illness and Religion, at which I presented a paper on 'stigma' in 2014. Linked to the 'action' call in this blog, I'd encourage you (if you are a person of faith) to read and consider sharing 'So, Church, What You Gonna Do?', which is concerned with mental health issues in particular.