On Assisted Dying - a letter to my MP

On 7th October I sent my newly elected MP a letter:

Olly Glover MP                
House of Commons
SW1A 0AA
 
Dear Mr Glover
    

 First, may I congratulate you on your election as our MP.  It was the first time in my memory that someone I voted for has been elected - and I’m now 75!  So I was delighted.  You got my vote not only from a desire to oust the rotten Tory government, but also because of Sir Ed Davey’s obvious concern for the vulnerable in society, like his son, and for their carers.
    You see, I have Primary Lateral Sclerosis, the rarest and slowest form of MND, and my wife has been my sole carer for the last twenty-two years.  As you’ll appreciate, looking after an increasingly disabled aging husband is no small burden, and being increasingly and incurably incapacitated is no joke — and yet we have a remarkably fulfilled life, even if physically circumscribed.  For example we were able to celebrate our golden wedding with a long weekend with our four children and their families this summer.
    The reason for telling you this is that, as you’ll understand, I’ve had a long time to think about assisted dying — not least as my own end approaches.  MND is one of the classic conditions which Dignity in Dying teaches us to fear.  Well, it is a cruel disease from which at the moment there is no escape.  However, the MND Association is actually reassuring about dying (and they should know): ‘The final stages of MND will usually involve gradual weakening of the breathing muscles and increasing sleepiness. This is usually the cause of death, either because of an infection or because the muscles stop working… Specialist palliative care supports quality of life through symptom control, practical help, medication to ease symptoms and emotional support for you and your family... In the majority of cases, death with MND is peaceful and dignified.’  So I’m under no illusions about the complexities of end-of-life.
    And I do realise it’s far from a simple issue — and in a way I’m glad it’s going to be discussed thanks to Kim Leadbeater’s early day motion.  But may I ask you to bear in mind when you consider the pros and cons some of the following.
When I was diagnosed as having ‘a motor neurone disorder’, it would have been very easy for me at that point to have assumed the worst and ended it all, had there not been the safeguard of the 1961 Suicide Act.  Prognosis in many conditions (including cancer — remember the Lockerbie bomber?) can only be an approximate art.   
    Not being depressive by nature, I’m lucky, but even I have my dark moments when I wonder how much longer….  For those more prone to depression the temptation to suicide must seem irresistible even though family and friends would be devastated by their loss and they themselves could miss out of more years of real fulfilment.
    I do understand why friends of mine have asked their palliative care doctors not to prolong their lives, but relieve both their symptoms and their pain, and why the professionals have agreed.  That seems to me both right and caring.  There’s a difference between not officiously prolonging and deliberately shortening; and the difference is intention.  
    Life is precious.  I don’t believe it’s our possession; but we are a part of life.  When it lets us go, we should go gracefully; but until then we shouldn’t dispense with it.
The pressure to end one’s life when in my situation is more internal than external, though no doubt there are some unscrupulous families who would wish their ailing or disabled relatives gone.  I remember early in my disease meeting an old lady in a supermarket car park who told us she was just a burden and would be better off dead.  I can now understand her sentiments, but surely the answer is greater valuing and care for every individual.
    I wonder whether the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for legalising assisted dying has been in any way bolstered by the £20 billion black hole the government has ‘discovered’ in the national coffers, as it would a much cheaper way of taking ‘care’ of us as we approach death than palliative care.  I’ve no doubt that consideration is not what is motivating Ms Leadbeater.  However I’m sure you would agree that living in a society which valued money, or indeed anything, over life would be a desperate thing.
    Reflecting on today’s anniversary (Holocaust Day), I have read again Elie Wiesel’s 1986 Nobel lecture, as he considered how events can take on their own momentum, only to be perceived in retrospect.  ’And yet real despair only seized us later. Afterwards. As we emerged from the nightmare and began to search for meaning. All those doctors of law or medicine or theology, all those lovers of art and poetry, of Bach and Goethe, who coldly, deliberately ordered the massacres and participated in them. What did their metamorphosis signify? Could anything explain their loss of ethical, cultural and religious memory? How could we ever understand the passivity of the onlookers and – yes – the silence of the Allies?’

    As Liz Carr’s BBC documentary reminded us, introducing assisted dying from the most compassionate of motives has scarcely, if ever, remained within its original limits.  I think we all need to be aware of unintended consequences, which history teaches us can be far-reaching - which none of us can predict.
    May I respectfully suggest that for Parliament a potentially more constructive consideration of end-of-life care could be (a) to invest much more generously in palliative care. - Isn’t it the case that hospices rely largely on charitable giving? - and (b) to protect the medical profession better when they are faced with the dreadfully difficult decisions around the end of patients’ lives.  
    Thank you for reading this letter, and may I assure you of my best wishes when you face this very complex and sensitive issue.

Yours sincerely

After a month Olly replied with a much more considered and longer response than one normally receives from an MP. I think he was suggesting that the subject should be exhaustively debated. "With these concerns in mind, I am worried that introducing this measure as a Private Members’ Bill will not allow for full debate and scrutiny of all the relevant provisions.  For that reason I have put my name to a letter to the Prime Minister and Leader of the House, recommending they bring forward a Bill in government time, in order that it has sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and to ensure public confidence in such an important decision." 

I hope my MP's letter is heeded, and that Gordon Brown's proposal for a commission on palliative care is adopted as a better way forward.

The insufficiently curious scapegoat

I cannot imagine what being the subject of abuse is like. At the moment I am watching ITV's Until I Kill You starring Anna Maxwell Martin and Shaun Evans only in small doses because contemplating the terror is scarcely bearable. How much worse being abused as a child must be! Thus, in what I'm writing I am by no means minimising the extent of the harm inflicted on the boys and men involved. The Makin Report into John Smyth's activities chooses the term 'victim' rather than the often preferred 'survivor' for the individuals who suffered at his hands. It seems appropriate. Not only did he beat them with relish, he also groomed them into a state of dependence. That may go some of the way to explain why it took so long for the extent of his abuse to become known.     

Maybe it was also a product of the times. It's easy to forget that corporal punishment was banned in state schools only in 1987 and in independent schools only in 1999. A diary piece in The Times in 1973 headed "Beating their privileged bottoms" commented, "Privileged parents spend fortunes sending their sons to schools where, even as recently as the sixties, they could be beaten savagely." Today attitudes such as "Spare the rod; spoil the child" rightly appal us, although only ten years ago James Dobson the American evangelical psychologist was advocating "Corporal punishment, when used lovingly and properly, is beneficial to a child because it is in harmony with nature itself." Perhaps in John Smyth, himself a product of a minor public school and a narrowly conservative Christian family, these two strands gave rise to his peculiarly perverted interpretation of the Bible and his abhorrent activity. That does nothing to excuse it. It was recognised as early as 1982 that some of his beatings were criminal offences and yet were not reported to the police. 

The two best bits of the Makin report in my view are the recommendations and Appendix 4, the Psychological Analysis by Dr Elly Hanson, in which she examines all the evidence.

    "On the basis of my review of all of the above, I am of the view that his abuse was an attempt to achieve the following:
• Sexual gratification
• Pleasure from other people’s pain (including their humiliation) – i.e. a sadistic motive
• Status; a desire to be at the top of one’s chosen hierarchy and to be admired and 
revered
• Dominance and control of others.
    "It is also possible that he was acting out of resentment and revenge motives (discussed briefly towards the end of the section on Smyth’s narcissism below), but there is insufficient evidence to be confident of this.
John Smyth had various psychological qualities that contributed to these motives, as well as to his decision to act on them and to the escalation of his behaviour                                                                                            "It appears that he had Narcissistic Personality Disorder (grandiose type) and, related to this, little interest in relational connection; little ability or willingness to self-reflect; a focus on his self-interest 
above those of others; and little or no empathy. He displayed exhibitionist and voyeuristic tendencies; callousness; and an ability to charm (a magnetism).                                                                                            "It also appears that he had a sexual interest in boys and young man (not incompatible with a sexual interest in his wife).                                        "Interacting with these motives and qualities, he held a number of core beliefs that may have either helped fuel or support his abusive behaviour. These included the beliefs that he was more important than others (i.e. a sense of entitlement); that being gay (or having gay sexual experiences) is a serious moral wrong; and that some people are ‘elected’ and endowed with special qualities to lead and be an authority over others (in particular himself). It seems that he had an implicit working model of the world in which relationships conformed to a dominant / submissive pattern (in other words, he did not have a conception of or belief in relationships between equals), and that he often saw his family members as avatars, not full people in their own right but in some way extensions of himself."

So where, you might wonder, does Justin Welby come into it so that he felt compelled to resign? He certainly wasn't one of the clerics among whom a report ("the Ruston report" of 1982) which detailed the extent of John Smyth's activities among schoolchildren and students was circulated. Indeed he wasn't ordained until ten years later. One of the first things I noticed on first reading the Makin Report was how frequently odd references to Justin Welby occurred, for example the times he attended Iwerne Trust camps, Christian houseparties for boys from an élite selection of public schools. We learn that from 1975 for four years he attended some of the same camps as Smyth. You might wonder, "So what? So presumably did hundreds of the élite in society, including many clergy, because that was the raison d'être of Iwerne, to convert potential future leaders." The Review's Terms of Reference include "(1) What information was available to Church of England bodies or office holders relating to John Smyth’s alleged abuse of children and individuals; and 
(2) Who had this information and when and what did they do with it." Justin Welby worked in the oil industry until 1989. Then he started training for ordination. Even if he knew that John Smyth was not a nice man as he was once told in Paris, there is absolutely no evidence that he was aware of Smyth's sadistic activity. So why is he in particular introduced at this point of the report, when he's neither a church body nor office holder? There are several clergy leaders who were in the circle of those in the know. They are mentioned, as is appropriate. It is true that he was informed in 2013, in that his office was told by Ely diocese that one case of historic abuse had been reported and appropriately passed over both to the police and to South Africa where Smyth then lived.

However as Andrew Brown, respected Guardian journalist who has no party axe to grind, has clearly demostrated in three pieces this is one among many flaws in the Makin Report. The gist of Brown's emotions are encapsulated in a reflection in the Church Times' article, "Press media mob helps Welby's foes to get their way". Brown's articles in his substack blog The slow deep hover are worth reading in their entirety, starting with "Does Makin finger Justin Welby?" (The others are "Against Makin" (Nov 15) and "Stephen Conway is innocent OK" (Nov 17)
.) Read these before you join the hue and cry arising from this whole horrifying failure of child protection, and consider too the part that a number of police forces played or failed to play in it.

I was alerted to some subterranean forces at work to unseat Justin Welby by a polemicaxl Facebook post by Adrian Beney, which for those who know me well will recognise echoes with my own school and undergraduate experience: 

    "The Archbishop of Canterbury is to resign because of failures in safeguarding. This follows the absolutely appalling revelations about the behaviour of John Smyth who was part of the Iwerne Camps. Whether he's right to resign I am not qualified to say....
    "I think Justin’s resignation leaves the church more uncertain and weaker than otherwise. Maybe this organised conservative group will already be mustering their tactics to have a conservative appointed to the See of Canterbury. Indeed, I suspect they've been doing it for months.
    "Without diminishing the seriousness of the Makin report, it was undoubtedly a convenient hook upon which to hang Justin out to dry in order to achieve the wider end of displacing him from the see of Canterbury. This will also displace him from being Member number 001 in General Synod. Which is where the Prayers of Love and Faith - the proposed not-a-marriage prayers for same sex relationships - will or will not be finally authorised.
    "It's ironic that in his appalling abuse of young men, Smyth's behaviour may also have solidified his party's hold on the theology of the Church of England for a decade or more." 

What lay behind this post, I don't know. I do not know Mr Beney himself, but I've gathered enough to realise that quite some number of vocal church people have tired of the Archbishop's leadership.

Personally although my father in his early days had been a Iwerne leader I'm glad to say he didn't encourage me to spend any time there, and although I was friends with a number of "Iwerne men" at university and many of the names in the Makin report are familiar to me I am too old to have fallen prey to John Smyth's clutches. 

Hindsight, they say, is a wonderful thing. Some readers of the Makin Report seem to have lost sight of one wise principle underlying the review: "Consider the actions of individuals and organisations against the standards of practice which applied at the relevant time, i.e. understand practice from the view point of the individuals and organisations at the time rather than using hindsight." While they and no doubt others seem to have forgotten the warning, "Judge not that ye be not judged."

Finally I have to conclude that I believe that Justin Welby has been utterly unjustly attacked both for his part in the affair beyond what he has already admitted and apologised for. In my opinion he has grown into what must be the most difficult position in the Church of England. One has only to consider the breadth of his remit and the narrowness of his power - looked to as the first among equals among archbishops of the global Anglican but independent churches and also among bishops within this country. At the same time he has to maintain, as far as he can, his own spiritual life. All this at the time when the body of the church in England has been radically and painfully divided. As Archbishop Justin Welby brought his deep experience of reconciliation mediation to bear with great patience to preserve the unity which should be the hallmark of the Church. I am deeply sad about his departure and the circumstances surrounding it. I hope that whoever succeeds him will carry on that mission.

If you have any doubt of the scope of his job, I recommend that you watch him being interviewed by Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart on their podcast, The Rest is Politics, in the episode "Why Church Attendance is now Increasing" (search on YouTube "rory stewart alastair campbell justin welby"}. It might also give you an idea why we have actually been blessed to have him as archbishop.

The strange biblical account of the scapegoat ends with the words, "and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness." Even though I would not have wished his time as archbishop to have ended in such unmerited blame and I am very sad at his departure I wish Justin Welby enjoyment of his freedom from the intolerable burdens of his office.

(Post amended for accuracy 25th November 2024)

Monsters in Iwerne

No, I couldn't say nothing, could I?

When I was a boy, my parents would drive us several times a year in our ancient black Austin A6 to visit my grandparents who lived on the south coast.

Those days of course were before motorways and in-car entertainment. So my father would help the journey pass with the pub sign game, in which you take turns to spot the number of legs on the pub sign - thus the Red Lion in Sturminster Marshall would give you four, while the George at Norton St Philip with St George on his horse would give you six. However trumping them all was the Thousand Millipedes, which Dad assured us was down a side-road in Iwerne Minster. 

Iwerne Minster has hit the headlines recently as it was one of the locations where the serial child abuser John Smyth, QC and Church of England lay reader, used to operate in the 1970s and 80s - decades after our car journeys. Summer camps for public school boys were held in a prep school there. His other locations were near Winchester (where he established links with the famous public school), Zimbabwe and probably South Africa - until his death in 2018. His sadistic and perverted actions were first publically hinted at in an article in The Sunday Mail in 2012. But they were already known about to a limited number of Anglican churchmen as long ago as 1982. In 2017 the story broke on the Channel 4 News when Smyth himself was challenged by Kathy Newman about his activities. In 2021 Andrew Graystone published an account in his journalistic book, Bleeding for Jesus. 

In 2019 the Church of England's Archbishops' Council commissioned an independent review of the abuse and the involvement of what are termed "church officers". Five years later Keith Makin and Sarah Lawrence have produced their report. It is 263 pages long. It is exhaustive and not an easy read in either its content or its style. (It could have done with a bit more proof-reading.) Much to the media's glee, Archbishop Justin Welby, after a campaign of pressure, announced that he had tendered his resignation to the King. The hanging offence seems to have been that he had been "insufficiently curious" when "informed" of Mr Smyth's grotesquely sadistic activity in the late 70s and early 80s. As Andrew Brown the Guardian writer has shown - see my next post - this is not borne out by the facts.

Holman Hunt, The Scapegoat (Liverpool Art Gallery)

I tend to agree with the author of the Sunday Mail article, Anne Adkins, on Newsnight, that the Archbishop is being treated as a scapegoat, since  we always want someone to blame, but the abuser himself is now dead and beyond the reach of human justice.

In my next post I shall explain more of my reasons. However for now I shall quote the comments of the Rev Dr Sam Wells, vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, in a letter to his church. They seem to me both judicious and helpful: 

"To be subject to profound and repeated physical abuse at a vulnerable age is among the worst things to befall anyone. Those who have had the courage to come forward and detail their experiences at the hands of a distorted individual over a period of decades must be at the very centre of the church’s care and concern.

"While the individual responsible was not an employee of the Church of England, and the channels through which he worked were not under the authority of the Church of England, it was nonetheless right that the Archbishop of Canterbury commissioned Keith Makin to investigate whether there was anything the church could have done to have prevented these terrible crimes and what lessons could be learned. After five years, the Makin Review has concluded that the church could have done much better, and has pointed the finger at certain individuals in particular. The central issue is that the information came to light in 2013, but between then and his death at his own hand in 2018, the perpetrator abused several dozen more people – and it’s not clear how this was permitted to happen.

"Over recent decades the church, along with many organisations, has undergone a radical reappraisal of its procedures around safeguarding children and adults at risk of harm. This has been a huge institutional culture change. The simple principles of vigilance, reporting and safeguarding being everyone’s responsibility have made the church a much safer place. One result of that is that failures stand out painfully; and failure in relation to a case as grievous as this is something neither church nor society is able to countenance. The church has failed many individuals whose lives have been impacted beyond description. It puts in question the significant progress that has been made. And it undermines the church’s credibility all over again.

"It is this that has led to the news today of the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a result of the words in the Makin Report that suggest that he, along with others, could have acted differently – and that if they had, many could have been saved from an unspeakable experience of harm. Leadership can be lonely; in today’s culture, when there is a very great wrong, there is a corresponding tide of demand that a leader visibly pay the price for an institution’s failings. It is tragic that a primacy bringing such profound good in so many areas, conducted by a person of singular faith, courage, humility and integrity, should end like this. But it seems the Archbishop has concluded that the unheard pleas of survivors, the degree of institutional failure, and the fact that his own role in the case was not impeccable, have together made it impossible for him to continue. His dignity and selflessness are an example to all of us."

(Post amended for accuracy 25th November 2024)