Thinking more about killing oneself (further thoughts on the Terminally Ill Adults [End of Life] Bill)

But it's not a matter of killing only oneself. "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind" (John Donne, former MP, in his most famous sermon). 

The euthanasia juggernaut has been gathering momentum through the western world. In this country it appeared as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, to be later rebranded as the richly endowed Dignity in Dying. It’s been beavering away for decades, with well publicised personal stories and legal cases which have been very effective in persuading general opinion that dying is frequently nasty and that we should have the right to choose when and how to die. That organisation resisted using the term ‘suicide’, which is what they advocate, realising that it opens up the accusation of devaluing life. So I’m not surprised that MPs have after an impassioned debate by a narrow majority eventually given way to the pressure.

A fortnight ago I had my annual check-up at the MND Clinic and subsequently received the GP letter. 
“Date seen 02/06/2025…  Diagnosis (this visit) Primary Lateral Sclerosis…  Symptom onset 2000”.

I well remember the year 2000, my voice deteriorating, my balance starting to fail me, resulting finally a year later in the consultant’s verdict, “You have a Motor Neurone Disorder.” Well, I knew what that meant as at the time Diane Pretty, backed and publicised by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, was fighting through the courts as far as the European Court of Human Rights for the right for her husband to take her to commit suicide in Switzerland in the Dignitas “clinic”. It was frightening time to receive an MND diagnosis. It still is, as the normal progression of the conditions that come under that label is both swift and relentless. However “in the majority of cases, death with MND is peaceful and dignified” (MNDA). 


At that time I could have been depressed; I could have known how much care I would need, how much it might eat into our savings; I could have feared the physical and emotional toll it would take on my wife; I could have been desperate about the future. Certainly I was vulnerable. Fortunately I was of an optimistic nature and had plenty of reasons for living. But it could easily have been otherwise. I might well have panicked and opted for a doctor to help me die, if the law debated in the Commons  was in effect. Then I wouldn’t have seen two sons getting married nor grandchildren being born and growing up. I would have missed out on twenty years of an increasingly restricted but paradoxically fulfilled life. Of course you might argue that I’m ‘lucky’ to have, as became clear over the years, my exceptionally rare and slow form of MND, but I wasn’t to know that, as indeed none of us do despite our doctors’ best predictions. Indeed I am lucky to be alive.

However it was my experience that brought me face to face with the fact of my own mortality and the issue of assisted dying. There seemed to me to be four main drivers. First, the desire for autonomy; second, the insistence of independence; third, a sort of compassion, and fourth, finance. There were two further factors: fear of death and fear of being “a burden”. 

It’s a modern western concept that humans are by nature autonomous beings, meaning that choice is an inalienable right. I once co-wrote a book with the title, I Choose Everything, based on a quote of Therèse of Lisieux. It was from a childhood incident, but it did not mean she reserved the right for total autonomy, but rather the opposite. As she later wrote, “I fear only one thing: to keep my own will; so take it, for ‘I choose all!’ that you (God) will!” Absolute choice is not a virtue. Choosing where to drive your car is not a virtue as it can endanger other road users. There are many limitations on freedom or taboos that protect others in a society. Taking someone’s life directly or indirectly is a universal one. Individuals submitting to a higher authority holds a community and a nation together.

Another related modern heresy is the ideal of independence. How utterly fatuous this is! None of us is born independent. We’re born relational. All of our lives we are interdependent. Being cared for is not to be lacking in dignity. Being 100% dependent does not deprive someone of their human dignity. Even the most disabled person is a human being made in the image of God. It is a dreadful thing when a society regards the disabled, the dependent, the different, the mentally deficient and the declining as inferior and potentially disposable. Of course the advocates of the Bill would vehemently deny that they or it implied any such thing. Yet the history of the twentieth century bears witness to how subtly a society can be seduced by the pernicious philosophy of eugenics. 

It is a modern paradox that medical advances have contributed to the illusion that death is to be feared. Yes, death has always been the last enemy and, yes, we hope it will be peaceful. But we shall all die. Contrary to received wisdom, the compassionate response to that fact of life is not to “put someone out of their misery”; compassion (literally suffering with) means to be with them in their suffering. This is what good palliative care provides, making the end of life dignified, worth living and even pain free. As Gordon Brown pertinently asked, “When only a small fraction of the population are expected to choose assisted dying, would it not be better to focus all our energies on improving all-round hospice care to reach everyone in need of end-of-life support?”

Of course palliative care costs more than facilitating patients to take their own lives. According to the Daily Mail “Legalising assisted dying would save the taxpayer £10million in NHS costs in its first year, rising to £60million after a decade, according to grim new estimates published by the government.” The estimates are indeed grim, but also attractive to politicians straining to balance the national budget. Yet they raise the fundamental question: do we want to live in a society which values money over life? 

Which is the most fundamental of all the issues: the sanctity of life has been a core principle central to all the Abrahamic faiths, which undergird our culture and way of life. In the words of Job on hearing of the death of all his children, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away.” The start and end of life are not ours to determine. We lack the wisdom of God.

Apparently the majority of our parliamentarians have decided to place that prerogative into the hands of suggestible and distinctly fallible humans beings. However the juggernaut has an insatiable appetite. We or our children shall, I fear, reap the whirlwind. 

Ian Birrell in his clearly argued opinion piece in the i newspaper puts it well: "Westminster seems far more focused on helping people to die instead of delivering the chance to ensure every British citizen can live their fullest life from birth to death."

 

[Blog based on my article in Seen and Unseen, where Graham Tomlin's article is worth reading: "What will stop the culture of death that libertarian Britain has embraced?"]  

Modern magnificat

I hardly ever attempt to write poetry - as will become obvious. However on Sunday, which was still within the Christmas season, I was provoked to do so. Over the past year one of my joys, of which there have been a number, has been regular engagement with a church which lives out the good news to the marginalised in a way that I find resonates with my understanding of Christ, or, if you prefer, real love. So here it is.

Child of our time, God of eternity,
pity our dreadful extremity
terrors of plague, horrors of war
refugees drown, glaciers melt.
nurses and carers drop
peacemakers killed
mindless mobs follow demagogues
down self-interest’s hell hill

Child of single girl, God of humanity,
here in our world, knowing infirmity,
looks with compassion
where we dare not look.
he does not turn away
from society’s prey
holds the hand of men dying of Aids
hugs the child who daren’t say she’s gay

Child of our flesh, God of infinity,
here in our pain, knowing fragility,
walks through the brambles
where we dare not go.
he does not avoid
the depths of our fears
nightly he sits in the cell on death row
watches with the widow in tears

Child of seeking, God of identity,
at home in the halls of complexity,
and muddy streets of poverty
yet homeless himself
careless of debate
he embraces all
colours and children, beggars or rich,
‘love, love,’ is his call.

Child of the world, God of diversity,
silenced not by all our perversity
speaks through autistic girls,
old men in suits and in robes.
Christ, give us eyes to see
your compassion to be
in our streets where you are, aching to bless
with our presence his beloved.

11th January 2021  

Sculpture Safe in His Hand by Sarah Lomas

 

What's wrong with the Falconer Bill?

On Sunday I was asked for my views on ex-archbishops endangering the lives of disabled and ill people. Well, it was the World Cup and I needed a day off; so I promised something on Monday. (Sorry - missed my deadline!) And this, I hope, will be it. Actually rather than knocking two well-meaning old codgers, I think I’ll write about about Lord Falconer’s deceptively innocuous-sounding bill on “assisted dying” whose second reading takes place in the House of Lords on Friday.

It’s summarised in Parliamentary business papers as “A Bill To enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.” 

A commentator summarised its contents like this: “His bill would make it legal for doctors to help mentally competent adults with less than six months to live to kill themselves. Two doctors would need to agree that a patient met the criteria and the option would not be open to minors, people without mental capacity or those who are not terminally ill.

“The final step would involve a doctor (or nurse) hand-delivering lethal drugs to the patient at a time and place of their choosing and staying with them while they took the drugs and until they were dead.”

I’m indebted also to Peter Saunders for the following three headings. He is not to blame for the comments thereafter, which are mine.

It’s unnecessary

The law

The present Suicide Act makes it illegal to aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, with a maximum penalty of no more than 14 years in gaol. The law is hedged round with safeguards such as prosecutions being carried out only by the Director of Public Prosecutions (within compassionate guidelines) and all the processes of jury trial and appeals. The law as it stands enshrines absolutely the protection of life, but allows the leeway of public interest and compassion, in other words, Portia’s principle of justice and mercy. The fact that in the 53 years since the Suicide Act was passed there has been no contentious court case is evidence that it’s not a bad piece of legislation.

End of life care

An aunt-sally propagated by the assisted-suicide lobby is that at present many doctors in fact covertly kill their terminally ill patients. I think they refer to the double effect of ceasing treatment or administering drugs with the intention of mitigating symptoms and alleviating pain. There is a category difference between that intervention and what the bill proposes (from understandable motives). A doctor friend of mine commented yesterday:

“Desmond Tutu, as quoted..., is completely misunderstanding the issue of assisted dying and my worry is that the bill will be passed based on these misunderstandings.

“Scenario 1) A person is terminally ill. It is their time to die and further treatment is futile and unnecessarily prolongs suffering (e.g. Repeated courses of chemotherapy, or the intensive care treatment of Nelson Mandela described in this article). We don't need a change in law for this. We need sensible, compassionate care.

“Scenario 2) A person is terminally ill and has a 'settled wish' to die. Two doctors therefore agree to end that persons life by way of administering drugs. This is what the bill proposes.” 

The accusation that palliative care specialists intend to kill their patients rather than ease their last hours has to my mind a hint of malice about it. 

Hippocratic oath v necessity

Nursing = caring

As I understand it, the aim of the bill is for health professionals (such as doctors and carers) to be allowed to take someone's life or to assist in their suicide: so for example allowing my doctor to administer a lethal injection at my request. That opens the door to doctors ceasing to be healers and carers, and becoming dealers in death. That is one of the most valuable safeguards in the DPP's Guidelines on Prosecution in respect of Assisted Dying, preventing health professionals helping someone taking their own life. I guess that's why the BMA is against a change in the law. As events proved, in Tony Nicklinson’s case for example, there was no necessity for a doctor to end his life. He could refuse treatment and ask for only symptom control and pain relief.

It’s unsafe

The bill itself

There are many aspects of the bill itself which are glaringly unsafe. For example the six month cut-off point: as any honest doctor will admit, such a precise prognosis is notoriously hard to make - witness the case of the “Lockerbie bomber” Al Megrahi being released having been given three months to live by the country’s leading cancer specialist, Professor Karol Sikora, and enjoying another three years of life back home. I know a number of people, such as the late Alison Davis, who are profoundly grateful that an early exit was not open to them, since they went on to live many more years of fulfilled life. For example the assessment of mental competence and settled desire simply by two doctors. There is no specifying of who the doctors should be, what their qualifications should be (for example psychiatrists). Presumably they would be doctors in favour of assisting death, and the prospect presents itself of the situation emerging in Holland of mobile euthanasia clinics with a couple of doctors ready to sign the necessary papers on board. For example, the requirement of informed consent. Does that mean being given a leaflet about local hospices, or palliative care packages? In my experience there’s no real alternative to visiting and staying in a place where you can experience care from the real experts.

Its implications

The proponents of assisted suicide often pillory the idea of a “slippery slope”. But experience shows it is unwise to do so. The Benelux countries and Switzerland (the only European nations with voluntary euthanasia) have witnessed a steady relaxation of the safeguards originally in place there. In the two US states where assisted suicide exists the number has steadily increased. Times of austerity (like the Depression of the 1930s) have seen a rise in euthanasia - see “Action T4” in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4). Disturbingly one can hear hints of this in Desmond Tutu’s “But why is a life that is ending being prolonged? Why is money being spent in this way? It could be better spent on a mother giving birth to a baby, or an organ transplant needed by a young person. Money should be spent on those that are at the beginning or in full flow of their life.”

Peter Saunders’ comment is pertinent. “The right to die can so easily become the duty to die and the generation that has killed its children through abortion could very easily become that which is killed by its children through euthanasia and assisted suicide. Add in economic crisis, debt, cuts in health and welfare and the argument gains force by playing on popular prejudice against those perceived to be a drain on families and the state.”

Lord Carey cited cases of permanently disabled people to explain his change of mind. Yet they of course are not covered by this bill. One see how inevitably the argument will be, “Why not these people?” “And why not teenagers younger than 18?” “Why not those with a longer-term terminal illness? Those with a chronic painful condition?” And so euthanasia is upon us. Disabled campaigners such as Tanni Grey-Thompson and Baroness Jane Campbell are clear in warning of this danger.

A further real danger is that of the disabled and chronically experiencing explicit or implicit or self-generated pressure to ask for euthanasia. Personally I think the last is the most likely, as the disabled, chronically ill and elderly seek to alleviate the expense and anxiety of those who care for them, whether family or state. And it would also be naïve to underestimate the amount of elder abuse in this country.

It’s unethical

Compassion

Stephen Hawking who like me has a rare form of MND not long ago propounded what I call the “pet theory”. It goes something like this: we have our pets put down when they’re suffering. Surely people deserve better than that? However it’s also true that we have them put down because they become incontinent, because their vet bills rocket and because, to be blunt, they’re no longer afford us pleasure. In other words, it’s more about us than the pet.

Compassion, it seems, is often confused with pity. The true and original meaning of compassion is to suffer with, to stay with someone in their pain and darkness. It doesn’t mean to put them out of their misery; it doesn’t mean concurring that their life has lost its value; it doesn’t mean euthanising them. That’s a cheap imitation of compassion. True compassion is costly emotionally and often financially.

Investment in universal best palliative care is the true expression of compassion, not the offer of a cocktail of barbiturates, which is a perversion of therapy. 

Defence of the vulnerable

"You are not a burden."

Another mark of a civilised society is its attitude to the weak and vulnerable. Eugenics gained traction in the early 20th century, wanting to produce healthy strong and racially pure men and women. The weak went to the wall. I'm not concerned for myself - although I don't look forward to the process of dying - but I am concerned for the vulnerable, the disabled who don't have a voice, for the elderly who are at risk through dementia or frailty - for those who are increasingly regarded as a burden on their families, on society, on our nation's resources. It's those people our laws should protect. Ironically Lord Falconer’s bill seems to me to be about people who are far from vulnerable. It’s about determined people concerned to maintain control over their lives come what may.

Rights

Rights only come with responsibilities. My right to life, or to death, can't be isolated. If my demanding the right to die endangers the lives of others, then my responsibility to them trumps my choice. You can’t have a community, you can’t have a society where each person insists on his or her rights. Rights, in my view, are not possessions. They are what we afford each other. The danger of this legislation is that it begins to remove the right to life of the many to accommodate the right to choose of the few.

Value of life

Neither is life a possession. Life is bigger than us. We are a part of life. We are granted a share in the adventure which is life. In financially straitened times, such as we are told we are now in, there is a real test on the horizon: what do we value more - money, or life? That will be the measure of our society. I know what I would prioritise.

The value of life was long ago encapsulated in a simple principle, “You shall not murder”, a word which includes intentional killing, and also from carelessness or negligence. In other words life, of whatever perceived “quality”, is precious and to be protected.

Lord Falconer’s bill, well intentioned though it may be, is in my view unsafe and opens the way to consequences which, though denied, are entirely logical extensions of the breach in this principle. 

"Untouchable" - an antidote to self-pity

I have just sent this review off to our PMA/PLS newsletter; so if you normally read that, don't read on!
Our friends, Mandy and Charles, lent us the DVD of Untouchable (originally Les Intouchables, in French), saying they thought we'd enjoy it. We watched it last night with two very good friends. What a good evening, sharing Masterchef-winning food and a rich red Spanish wine. I wouldn't say I wet myself, except with tears of uncontained laughter down my face. It's an excellent film and a refreshingly sane view of disability, and Steve and Bev are such great fun.

We’ve just watched Untouchable for the second time.  It had me helpless with laughter on occasions – which is remarkable as one of the two main characters is a sad quadriplegic widower and the other is a fostered alienated gang-member from the Paris suburbs.  As the French title implies, both are examples of society’s outsiders.  They both are “untouchable”.  The film is based on the true story of Philippe Pozzo di Borgo (“Philippe”) and his carer, Abdel Sellou (“Driss”).

There are so many memorable scenes, it’s hard to pick out highlights.  It starts with a hilarious car chase through Paris at night, and then we see how the partnership began, with Driss simply looking for evidence for his job-seekers’ benefit.  His total unsuitability appeals to Philippe, a multi-millionaire disabled in a paragliding fall, who clearly and unsurprisingly is a difficult client.  There follows an unsentimental and funny induction for Driss into the business of caring, from exercises to compression stockings, from showering to evacuating bowels! 

Meanwhile you watch how their differing cultures and personalities (though they are both strong) enrich and change the other, and how in a sense they redeem each other’s hopeless lives.  I don’t want to give more of the plot away, but there are two bits of dialogue which remain with me.  One is when Philippe is being warned off Driss by his lawyer-friend who has “made enquiries” into his dubious past of petty crime.  “These street guys have no pity.”  Philippe replies, “That’s it exactly.  That’s what I want.  No pity.”  The other is near the end when Driss, reemployed after being sent to sort his cousin out, has driven Philippe to the seaside to a smart hotel, and is shaving off his beard – he’s “let himself go” in Driss’s absence – .  Philippe says, “A quick cut would settle it.”  Driss is unmoved, just replying, “You’re in great shape.  I love it.”  There follows a great scene in which he experiments with various styles of moustache, and then comes the film’s dénouement, which I won’t divulge.  What Driss learns for himself and then insists for Philippe is that we are not fated to be victims. 

I do think it’s the most positive and affirming film about disability I’ve watched, and for me has been a great antidote to self-pity.  It’s beautiful, gritty and funny, with lots of witty dialogue.  I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

It's sad, I feel, that all of us, however disabled, do not reject victimhood, and insist on life even in the minutiae of existence. After his conversation about pity, Philippe goes on to say, "True, he (Driss) isn't compassionate for me. But he's strong, with arms and legs. His brain works; he's healthy. So, for the rest, given my 'state', as you call it, his background and so on, I don't give a shit." It strikes me this is a different way of looking at compassion from that bandied around so freely in the media and among the mass of phoners-in to radio shows. Driss does not show the sentimental "I feel so sorry for you" mentality which so often passes for "compassion". That is not what Philippe is looking for or needs. He needs pragmatic compassion, which is the word Driss adopts to describe himself, pragmatique. That is true compassion, standing with someone, through thick and thin, and doing practically all you can to enhance their life. It seems clear that we're in for another round of pro-euthanasia campaigning with Paul Lamb's identifying himself as the late Tony Nicklinson's unnamed co-litigant this week and Lord Falconer limbering up for another attempted round of legislation in the Lords. Watch out for that wishy-washy sentimentalised use of the C word! It's not true compassion. It's a substitute emotion, not the real thing. In occupied Jersey during the war, they used to grind up lupin seeds to make ersatz coffee. Well, beware of ersatz compassion. Watch Untouchable to see what true caring really looks like, how gritty and how positive it is.

Lord Falconer's Choice Illusion

So the Falconer "commission" has rebranded itself as a "panel of legal and medical experts" and confessed to being funded by and packed with assisted suicide supporters. In fact, the MP involved said, there was no one on the panel previously opposed to it. 

The fundamental issue seems to me to be a matter of choice, but it's not a matter of individuals choosing how they want to die. Rather it's a matter of us deciding what sort of society we want to live in.

This is the article I'd hoped would be published in a national paper, but wasn't in the event.

"Last year, in the midst of austerity and recession, the BBC’s ‘Children in Need’ raised a record £26,332,334 by the end of a single evening.  Today the self-styled Commission on Assisted Dying under the chairmanship of Lord Falconer, champion of the legalization of assisted suicide in England and Wales, will be presenting their conclusions.  Considering the ‘commission’ is funded by and predominantly made up of similarly-minded people, it’s not been hard to predict what some of those conclusions might have been.  They’ll be couched in reasonable and balanced terms no doubt, and they’ll hardly be novel.  However, on the principle that if you keep repeating something enough times, it will eventually be believed, they’ll serve their purpose. 

"One of the main themes, let me guess, will be that of freedom of choice.  The argument runs something like this: since 1961 suicide has ceased to be a crime.  Terminally ill people, for example with Motor Neurone Disease or Locked-in Syndrome, reach a point when they are unable to take their own lives.  Thus they are deprived of a civil right and unfairly discriminated against.  They, it is said, of all people might well want to end their lives - and the law as it stands means they can’t, because the same Suicide Act (amended 2009) goes on to state: “A person (“D”) commits an offence if (a) D does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and (b) D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide”.  It does also leave the jury discretion to convict or not, and only permits proceedings “by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions” - which explains the minimal convictions under the Act in 50 years.

"If someone like myself should wish to leave our disease behind, why should we not say so and why should we not be assisted, without the fear of our assistants’ facing prosecution?  Surely it’s my life and my choice? 

"In discussions people have said to me, “Suicide’s been legalized.  That means it’s my right to take my life.”  The wording of the Act does not exactly express that meaning: “The rule of law whereby it is a criminal act for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated.”  To say that the state will not regard a suicidal person, whether successful or unsuccessful, as a criminal, is not the same as saying that the state sanctions or encourages suicide.  In fact the wording of the 2009 amendment was widened in order to cover internet sites promoting suicide, implying that the state’s inclination is to discourage suicide.  Mr Justice Baker’s judgement in the recent case of patient ‘M’ summed the principle up: “The factor which does carry substantial weight, in my judgement, is the preservation of life. Although not an absolute rule, the law regards the preservation of life as a fundamental principle.”

"The question is whether personal choice can trump the preservation of life.  It is, of course, not true that we have unfettered freedom of choice.  For example, we are not free to drive on the right or without a seat belt, because the state does not want us to kill either ourselves or each other.  Similarly, where we may smoke is restricted.  Even what we may say and write is limited.  There are good reasons for such things, but the point is choice is not an inherent right.  Autonomy, the oft-touted synonym for choice, literally means “having one’s own laws”.  That is incompatible with being part of a larger society.  Therein lies the flaw in arguing for legislation which allows for a variety of practice in the taking of life, or assisting to die.  Once you say that it’s possible to decide your own personal laws in matters of life and death you have no fundamental ground to say a particular action is unacceptable.  It will all depend on circumstance and motive – and that is shifting sand.  Even ‘compassion’ is an elusive and subjective motive.  You may set apparently water-tight perameters, but they also will shift.

"To abandon the preservation of life as a fundamental principle of our society’s laws, in the name of personal choice, would be to retreat from centuries of hard-won progress.  It was, after all, only in 1969 that Parliament voted to abolish the state taking life.  During the debate on the abolition of hanging, Duncan Sandys led the opposition to the vote, arguing that “We have no right to assume that the firmly held views of the overwhelming majority of the British people are unworthy and misguided.”  His view was shared neither by the Commons nor the Lords, and so even the life of the murderer was protected.  (It will be interesting to see whether Sandys’ contention about public opinion, which seems predominantly to favour euthanasia, will be echoed by the ‘commission’.)

"So what will society say to me when I get near the end of my MND – if it’s not to allow someone to top me when I’ve had enough?  I hope it will say, “We will see you through this.  We will give you the best quality of life that’s possible.  We will provide all the palliative care that you need, including supporting your carers.  We will do everything possible to ease your symptoms and to control your pain.”  And I would say, “Please keep me comfortable.  If the pain relief should shorten my life by hours or days, that’s all right.  You’re only doing your job.  And when I should die, just let me be.” 

"Is it a Utopian ideal?  In fact it’s the legal situation now.  But aren’t there doctors out there who’ll betray one’s trust?  Aren’t there trusts and commissioning consortia who will try to trim their care costs?  There are horror stories of the neglect of the elderly in hospitals, after all.  (It’s worth pondering whether one factor beneath the horror stories is the progressive devaluing of the dependent person?)  Well, there are risks, but the society which firmly holds the preservation of life as a fundamental principle will be on the lookout for such breaches and, most importantly, put its resources where its principle is.  And the risks are small beside the risk of abandoning the principle that life is precious above all else. 

"‘Children in Need’ projected on our TV screens the courage and beauty of disabled, dependent and often dying children.  It showed us the incredible endurance and compassion of those who care for them.  There can be no question as to their worth and of the value of enhancing or at least ameliorating their lives.  We know it's right.  The society which cherishes life, even at its most tenuous, is far preferable to one which admits the principle that some lives are disposable.  'Children in Need' or the 'Commission'?  I know which vision I prefer."

from Children in Need website

I know the so-called experts are not calling for euthanasia, but only for assisted suicide of mentally competent adults, but my point is that once the preservation of life is breached as a foundational principle of law and life-taking is permitted a Rubicon will have been crossed, and we shouldn't be fooled that it's the end of the road for the advocates of euthanasia.

Change the story

There was, I thought, an interesting comment from Mariéme Jamme from Senegal on "Start the Week" this morning about our view of Africa today. Speaking about our view of its being full of corruption and failure - whereas in reality there's a lot of good news from the continent - she partly blamed the BBC for giving "negative narratives" (fed by the NGOs). Shuyun Sun agreed in relation to the Western media's cover of China. There is, it seems, a narrative, a world view, which we are adopting, fed largely by an intellectual/political elite who dominate the news outlets. 


We need to be on the look-out for the way our perspective on current affairs and indeed life itself gets skewed by the mass entertainment/information machine. It should be a warning sign that entertainment and news are twinned at the hip. Really hard news, which disturbs our comfort, is not likely to have much of a look-in. The way the entertainment industry works is to soften us up with a series of warm-up acts until at last we'll no longer be shocked at the comedian's blue jokes or obscenity. In other words we have our normal perspective changed. It's the way, of course, that propaganda works - to pump out enough half-truths (the most diabolical sort of lie) until our grip on truth and reality is sufficiently loosened so that we believe the opposite to where we started. 


Mariéme Jamme describes herself as "a proud African woman". Her comments struck me in the context of the BBC's coverage of two events in her continent: one was the brutal suppression of a demonstration by Coptic Christians in Cairo, protesting about the partial demolition of one of their churches with no intervention from the police, with 25 or more fatalities and over 200 hospital admissions. Should one be bothered one can read the shocking facts. Meanwhile more extensive coverage was given to the Development Minister's announcement that Malawi was having its aid grant cut by £19 million because of persecution of homosexuals. Why, I wondered, did the government choose to cut aid to Malawi and not Egypt, or Pakistan, or China? Was the announcement simply a calculated step in establishing the coalition's liberal credentials?


I came across this trenchant post on Archbishop Cranmer's blog: Cairo: 23 homosexuals slaughtered by Egyptian Army, in which he simply points out the inconsistency of using our standards of behaviour for judging recipients of compassion.

Squaring the circle

I don't listen to the BBC World Service so much these days, but this morning I happened to tune in to The Forum. The format was a three-way discussion this time on the subject of Activism. The participants were a French architect, a South Korean economist, and an Australian "anarchist" poet, John Kinsella, who's a fellow at Churchill College in Cambridge. It was a provocative discussion.

I was particular interested in their discussion of language, kicked off by the poet who advocates "linguistic disobedience", which I think means resisting the way that language is used as a system of control' ie scepticism about words and control. It reminded me a bit of what I wrote yesterday about the Nazis' use of "compassion" in the early 20th century. We have not to collude when language is manipulated by those with power and influence. For example, government spokesmen construct the myths they want us to believe by their selection of terms - as the saying goes, one man's terrorist is someone else's freedom-fighter. Kinsella talked about writing a poem trying to prevent the death-sentence on an Australian in Singapore in which he stripped away the rhetoric and describe the event as it is: "the executioner will eat a meal before and after"; as he said, "Anyone who takes a life is a hypocrite." When meanings are hijacked, imperceptible control is exercised without our realising.

It's a technique I've come across among the campaigners for euthanasia. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society (whose purpose was what it said on the packet) rebranded itself, a few years ago, as Dignity in Dying, and took to talking about Assisted Dying rather than Suicide. There are four ways of dying: natural death, accidental death, being killed and killing oneself. There's also an attempt to hijack "compassion" to legitimise putting an end to someone's life prematurely. One needs to ask, "What's the agenda beneath replacing plain English with gobbledy-gook?"

Other interesting hijackings include "having a baby" and "marriage". Picture a couple. The wife discovers she's pregnant, "Honey, we're having a baby!" The politically correct man replies, "No, dear, you're carrying a foetus." And I guess 99% of the population would consider "marriage" to mean what it's always meant, the union of a man and woman for companionship, procreation and family life. But not for much longer. The meaning of the word is being manipulated to create a new myth.
I'm indebted to Paul Huxley for this sardonic comment on the official redefining of words.
"Square circles to become legal

"In a groundbreaking move, the government is set to introduce square circles.

"The Deputy Minister for Shapes commented: 'It is time that we gave true equality to circles, not only to rectangles. Why shouldn't circles be considered square?.'

"Under the new law, mathematicians and geometrists who object to this redefinition will be allowed to continue using the old definitions, and definitely won't be forced to use the new terms in their research papers. However, all Maths teachers will be required to use the new definitions with their students.

"A spokesman for the fundamentalist group, The League of Geometrists, objected to the new rules: 'How can a circle be square? It is a contradiction in terms. If it remains circular, how can it consist of four lines of equal length?'

"But the Prime Minister, supporting the move, said: 'This move will be supported by all tolerant, welcoming, broad-minded people.'"

The law of the jungle

Here I am sitting in Cornerstone (my favourite coffee shop), enjoying a peaceful cup of coffee. I've just put up on its Facebook page pictures taken at Tuesday's friendly AGM. And now I've noticed on Peter Saunders' blog that the BBC is putting out another programme this coming Tuesday about patients in a permanent vegetative state, and my heart sank, especially when I read how it's billed: "There are thought to be as many as 5000 such people in the UK. The working party will look at concerns that assessment and diagnosis of patients is not consistent across the country and will ask whether the cost of long term care is affordable to the NHS. Ann Alexander examines calls for a reform of the process to end the life of such patients where their families believe their loved one would no longer wish to be alive. The programme reveals how some hospitals appear unaware of the law and hears how the process can be lengthy and costly, putting families under further strain"(Peter's italics). As Peter comments, the old specious euphemisms. (There was rather a witty Mac cartoon in The Telegraph on the subject.)


You can see the way the argument's running. This Monday it was, "Individuals should be allowed to choose when they die (only when their lives are unbearable, of course)." Next Tuesday it will be, "Oh yes, and did we forget to mention those who can't choose? Can we afford them? No. They're very expensive to keep. So let's put them down." The argument flows from choice to non-choice so easily, from patient's decision to family's wish so seductively. "Surely they have no quality of life?" You may remember this was something I touched on in Chapter 21 of I Choose Everything, "Compassion costs":


"With the discovery that we can have some form of communication with some patients in a persistent vegetative state (deep and long-lasting unconsciousness), one of the first questions journalists asked was whether that meant one could get an answer to the question, ‘Do you want to go on living?’ They expected, I think, to be told No, and that this would solve the dilemma of keeping comatose patients expensively alive, but the surprising truth they heard was that the vast majority of ‘locked-in’ patients (perhaps the nearest one can get to a conscious vegetative state) want to stay alive. Contrary to the account in the film, Jean-Dominique Bauby, who authored The Diving Bell and the Butterfly merely by a movement of an eyelid, did not ask for his life to be ended. Just down the road from where we once lived, in Stepping Hill Hospital is a 26-year old mother locked in her body, Michelle Wheatley, who steadfastly wants to live. There is, it seems, a deep-seated instinct to stay alive, and actually to keep alive. We don’t naturally stand and do nothing when someone tries to jump under a train. Something tells us that life is precious. We know it’s good to be alive, even when it’s hard. We value life, rightly."

Who's next? I wonder. The senile who can no longer express themselves at all? Can we afford their care costs? "No doubt they'd rather be dead." I'm sure the Radio 4 programme will have people claiming that ending the lives of deeply comatose patients is only compassionate. But I'm afraid it's not compassion. It's economics, and it's the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest.  


I reflected on Monday on the irony of Choosing to Die immediately following Springwatch. The latter is presented by jolly, jocular personalities, full of the joys of spring and new life; the former by the saturnine Mr Pratchett, presiding with melancholy solemnity over death. Where's the link? I thought. Then I remembered the pictures of the young buzzards and barn owls who consumed their weaker siblings. "It's the way of things," Chris Packham explains in lugubrious tones. "They have to survive, when their normal food runs short or when the owls can't hunt because of the rain." It's the law of the jungle, but not the law of community. We don't live in the jungle - do we? Individualism brings death; community brings life. And the law of community is love.  

Compassion isn't feeling sorry for someone or yourself;
it's staying with them through their suffering to the very end.

Please don't hijack care

First, an apology: I fell into the oldest trick in the politician's PR book, viz "When you've got some unpopular policy to announce, leak a worse version first and then when you make the real announcement people will think, 'Well, that's not so bad, is it?'" The cap on student loans is going to be "only" £9,000 per annum, but, unlike now, there will be an additional 3% p a over inflation to repay. It's still quite a hike from the present and still, of course, means students ending up in debt. Graduates on the national average wage of £31,000+ would pay 19.3% more tax than their non-graduate contemporaries, while paying off their loan. One mysterious (to me anyway) rule is that graduates will be penalised if they pay the loan off early.... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-set-to-unveil-tuition-fee-plans-2123847.html)

This week car manufacturer, Toyota, are having yet another recall, this time of 12,000 of their iQ models in this country (bringing the grand worldwide total over the past months to 10 million of various models). It's extraordinary how successful they still are. First it was a braking problem ("Keep your distance; the car in front is a Toyota"); this time it's a fault with the steering. I know they're not the only car maker to recall cars, but they seem to have more than their fair share.

It's ironic then that Care Services minister, Paul Burstow, should be so keen on another Japanese invention, Hureai Kippu. I don't know how likely it is to crash, but it's a very bad idea. In case you don't know, it means "Caring Relationship Tickets", and it's a way of rewarding voluntary carers with credits they could later redeem to fund their own care when they need it. So, for example, if someone were to shop for me or wash me or help me on the toilet - out of mere concern or love - they could log it and put it in a "bank" of credits for when they needed care. Good idea, you might think on a superficial level. However, there are two things fundamentally and profoundly wrong with this. 

One is that everyone, whether or not they've been nice or nasty, whether they've clocked up Hureai Kippu points or not, ought to be cared for when they're in need. Compassion should be free at the point of need. 

The other is that care, voluntarily and freely given, is just that. To link it to self-serving reward is to pollute its very nature. Certainly caring for someone else brings incredible personal reward, but as a by-product, not as its purpose. The caring professions, of course, are incomparable and I rely on them, but the care of those who stand to earn nothing from it is of a different order. To incentivise it would be to compromise it tragically.

I'm reminded of the prayer of St Ignatius of Loyola - which I think I learned in my brief career as a Cub Scout -. It would be an immense loss to abandon the profound principle of disinterested service which remains a beautiful part of our country's Christian heritage, even if so clearly enunciated by a Spaniard!

Teach us, good Lord,

to serve Thee as Thou deservest;

to give and not to count the cost;

to fight and not to heed the wounds;

to labour and not to ask for any reward,

save that of knowing that we do Thy will.

through Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Thinking of volunteering, the episode of The Secret Millionaire on 17th October contained a good example. "Travel website entrepreneur and self-confessed geek Chris Brown confronts painful memories and undergoes a life-changing experience as he looks for people to help in north Manchester." Among the charities he visited was The Mustard Tree where Paul works. What Chris Brown found hard to get his mind round was when he offered £15,000 to Oscar, who works in the refuse centre and does up thrown out bikes and gives them to families who couldn't afford one. Oscar turned the money down, because he simply loves doing it. He does it out of love. That is worth the world. To give Chris Brown his due, he respected Oscar's decision. Let's hope the government gets the point too. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-secret-millionaire/4od#3129925

 

Christian compassion?

I confess: the football has been distracting me, although you might be forgiven for wondering how that can be. It seems that the majority of the teams have been frozen with fear of failure, to such an extent that I chose to watch the Vienna Midsummer Concert last night rather than the much-decried England/Algeria match. My feeling was that I was undoubtedly watching a higher level of skill than was on display in Cape Town. (I did flick over occasionally, and watched the end of the match.)

Life has been busy recently. We are seasonal creatures. We had a clerical week last week. Off to the globe-trotting Webbs on Wednesday in Abingdon for lunch, and heard about their recent trans-world travels; and then on Friday we were graced with a visit by the bishop of Yattendon and his dog, Borage. He is a particularly well behaved, if a little indulged - the dog that is. Tony is a very diligent and, I'm sure, well-loved vicar.

Talking of dogs, I was struck by what Dr Howard Martin is quoted as saying in today's Telegraph on line. He's the doctor who has been struck off the medical register for hastening the death of 18 of his patients. "A vet would put a dog down, but under the current system a doctor is not allowed to take positive action to help a patient in a humane way." It is noticeable how he chose his words. Why didn't he talk about doctors putting patients down? Even 'put down' is a euphemism for 'kill'. So let's rerun that sentence, Doctor: "A vet would kill a dog, but under the current system a doctor is not allowed to kill a patient." Thank goodness!

Doctor Martin, I suspect influenced by Dignity in Dying (the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society), does more than excuse himself on those grounds. He claims to be trying to contribute to a national debate  on end-of-life care, but that's little comfort for the family of at least one of the patients whose life he ended prematurely, Harry Gittins. His son spoke movingly of the day which began with his father getting the car out to go for a hospital appointment and ended with his death at home. The phrase that the media has seized on is 'Christian compassion' - which Doc Martin claims as his motive. I hope that in due course he reads I Choose Everything which devotes a chapter to the subject. Henri Nouwen said, "Let's not underestimate how hard it is to be compassionate. Compassion is hard because it requires the inner disposition to go with others to the place where they are weak, vulnerable, lonely, and broken. But that is not our spontaneous response to suffering. What we desire most is to do away with suffering by fleeing from it or by finding a quick cure for it." Compassion is not pity. It's not saying, "I can't bear the pain of watching this anymore." It's simply suffering with others, standing alongside them in their pain and walking the road with them. It's not 'putting someone down', like a pet. The whole case vividly illustrated the danger of the whole euthanasia campaign, which sees killing or assisting suicide as a 'quick cure' for terminal illness. It becomes just another acceptable treatment available to the medical profession.