Celebrating

Tuesday was a special day. We went to Bristol, my old stamping ground, for a double celebration. By the way, I reckon that we should have as much celebrating as we can find pretext for. In this case it was to witness a major milestone in our Dutch friends' lives. Otto and Mirjam wanted to renew the wedding vows, and Anne, their daughter, was to be baptised while her parents also renewed their baptism promises.

So an early start and it was off to Stoke Gifford (next to Bristol Parkway Station) for the renewal of marriage vows followed by the wedding breakfast (coffee and cake!) in the great coffee shop over the Green. Then it was a convoy, following the yellow Mini Convertible of Karen, the associate minister, to a friendly Baptist Church in Patchway, to use their pool. It was altogether a privilege to be there as the three of them went into the water and came out to be wrapped in prayer and towels.

After that we went to Cribbs Causeway to have lunch in the food hall with Otto, Mirjam and Anne. Very nice it was, too.

And soon we'll be celebrating Christmas. Mulled and mince pies with our neighbours. Carols and Christmas services.

Lessons from history

40 years ago, there was a military junta in Greece led by Colonel George Papadopoulos. A clique of army officers (presumed to be backed by the CIA) had seized power in 1967 in order to forestall democratic elections which looked likely to return a left/centre government. Thousands were arrested and tortured. (http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/junta.htm) The ousted Prime Minister, Andreas Papandreou, was sent into exile, where he later died.

When I was at university, Cambridge City laid on a Greek Week in February 1970. It wasn't a really smart move. After all the Junta had banned, among other things, the peace movement, strikes, labour unions, long hair on men, mini-skirts, the peace symbol, the Beatles, Sophocles, Tolstoy, Aeschylus, Socrates, Eugene Ionesco, Sartre, Chekhov, Mark Twain, Samuel Beckett, free press, new maths and the letter Z , which means 'he lives'. Students weren't very impressed by the city entertaining this brutal government's tourist interests. The final event was a reception at Cambridge's poshest hotel, The Garden House, by the river, just down the road from my college. A demonstration was predictable and expected. In fact most guests were there well before the scheduled start. Those who weren't ran into hundreds of protesting students. As is the way the demonstration escalated, so that some students got inside, windows were broken, stones thrown, a firehose turned on students, truncheons drawn and dogs brought in.

Six arrests were made, and eventually 15 were charged in court. Eight were found guilty and were given custodial sentences between nine and 18 months in prison by Justice Melford Stevenson, the harshest High Court judge of his time. Clearly the intention was to make an example of the young men. The article published in Cam in the summer
 (http://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/uploads/File/CAM61/CAM_61_web.pdf) about the incident, marking its 40th anniversary, makes instructive reading especially after the recent student demonstrations about rising fees. When they see pledges broken and Mr Norman Lamb (Lib Dem MP, government whip) declaring on national TV that students will be paying back less than at present (with fees doubled or tripled - hardly!), one can understand students' exasperation and desire to protest. It ends:
'The place of the Garden House riot in the wider history of British student protest remains a matter for debate – particularly on the question of whether the sentences were responsible for quelling further violent demonstration. Melford Stevenson continued to think so, up to his death in 1987. In retirement, he told a reporter that the Garden House protest was “undoubtedly a case for deterrent sentences, and that is what I passed. The significant thing is that since then, no major incident of such student violence has happened.”

'An opposing view was taken by Owen Chadwick, Vice-Chancellor at the time of the events. “That is wrong,” he told the Cambridge Evening News in 1980. “It stopped because people in the University themselves did not want it ever to happen again. They realised they had gone too far.”

'Of those approached for this article, none admits to any regret over their involvement in the demonstration. Stephen Amiel says: “I don’t know what the people who went to prison would say, but those of us who didn’t had no regrets. The fact that it created so much negative publicity for the Greek regime was fantastic.”

'Rod Caird, who would end up serving 12 months, broadly agrees; but believes that the deterrent effect on protest should not be underestimated. “We certainly publicised the protest movement about the dictatorship in Greece very effectively. But it brought people up with a start to realise that if they were going to get involved in demonstrations, it could have a really bad outcome.”

'Nick Emley likewise professes “no regret at all about what happened” and is dismayed at the responses sent to the Cambridge News after he was recently interviewed about the events. “Forty years on, there’s resentment at the way we behaved, and I assume at our political attitudes, which I regard as reasonable and decent – hardly what you’d think of as hardline Marxist stuff.”

'The most pragmatic view of the Garden House affair is taken by Bob Rowthorn – now Emeritus Professor of Economics, and a life fellow of King’s College. “The truth of the matter was that it was a rather small event that got out of hand,” he says. “Well-organised demonstrations typically don’t have clashes or violence. “So if someone said, ‘If you had planned to do something like that, could you justify it?’, I’d say no. But it wasn’t planned as a riot. The trouble is, demonstrations do get out of hand.”'  

I suspect Owen Chadwick, the historian, is nearer the mark than Melford Stevenson, the beak, who turns out to have been a trifle optimistic, if not naïve.

A very interesting invitation

Last week I received an email from Lord Charles Falconer, inviting me to give evidence to his "Commission on Assisted Suicide". In his letter he told me it's independent. In his blog, George Pitcher of The Telegraph describes it as entirely bogus. As he says, "its findings are already a done deal, of course. To recap: not only is Lord Falconer a well-known advocate of euthanasia, who has tried to introduce it into legislation in the Lords, but he is chairing the “Commission”. At the last count, nine of the 12 “Commission” members are on record as supporting some change in the law to allow some form of euthanasia in the UK (the remaining three are best described as neutral-to-wobbly, so there are no actual opponents of a change in the law here). The “Commission” is bankrolled by Sir Terry Pratchett, the novelist who believes those of infirm mind should be put to death, and sponsored by the death-on-demand lobbyists Dignity in Dying." (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100066784/our-two-lords-leaping-into-a-euthanasia-review-are-like-a-pair-of-turkeys-reporting-on-christmas/ )   
               
I'd not read this before replying, but this was what I emailed back:

"Dear Lord Falconer

Thank you for your invitation to give evidence to your commission on assisted dying.  I regret that I shall decline for two reasons. 

The first is that my condition of Motor Neurone Disease makes travel far from easy.  If the object were sufficiently compelling, then I might be persuaded to make the effort, but in this instance – a self-appointed unofficial ‘commission’ – it is not the case.

The second is that I have no confidence in either your commission’s independence or its objectivity.  As for its proclaimed ‘independence’ I understand it is the brainchild of Dignity in Dying, whose overt purpose is to campaign in favour of assisted suicide, and that it is funded inter alia by Sir Terry Pratchett, whose views are well known.  And as for its objectivity, whilst not doubting their sincerity, I understand that the large majority of the panel members, including yourself, are on record as supporting a change in the law and, to my knowledge, there are none who have been vocal on the other side of the debate. 

I suspect that my appearing to give evidence would be used to give a fig leaf of balance to a final report the direction of whose recommendations are predictable and which to my mind would verge on propaganda. 

Should there ever be an official Parliamentary commission again on the subject, I should be glad to give evidence, either in writing or if possible in person, but I am sure you will understand why I am declining your invitation.

Yours sincerely..."

As usual, I wished in retrospect I had been more gracious in what I'd written, bearing in mind what St Paul had to say about seasoning our speech with salt. However, once you've sent an email you can't unsend it. So should any of the "commission" happen to read this, I apologise for that. 

Trip to London

On Monday Jane and I drove up to London. We were heading for the Kentish Town TV Studios. It was a freezing foggy morning, and on the way we hit snow on the M4. However, Jane enjoyed driving the new car. Much smoother than the Focus, she finds. And she's pretty cool driving through the city, even when I got lost navigating through Camden Town - on the way home. 


Our purpose was to record a 4Thought programme for Channel 4, about assisted suicide. In case you've never seen it, 4Thought is the 1 minute 50 second item immediately following Channel 4's Evening news. It's considered a religious programme. The filming was done in a large pure white studio with no straight lines - peculiarly disorientating. You really do get the illusion of infinity. Sadly I didn't need make up! My pate wasn't too shiny, apparently. In the event, they interviewed me for more than 30 minutes. Then Jane and I had to do various still shots and one walking on! It will be interesting to see the final edited result some time in January. Typically, during the night I woke up and thought of what I should have said! 


I'd like to have said some of this:

"I’m Michael Wenham.  I’m a Christian.  I have a slow form of Motor Neurone Disease.  It already means I cannot live independently.  More and more that will be the case, until eventually I die.

We have an old dog who’s beginning to show her age.  If she ever gets cancer and is in constant pain, I shall have her put down.  Why should there not be a law allowing that for people? 

The reason is that valuing human life is the mark of a civilised society.  Over the centuries, bit by bit, we have learned to treat it as precious – rightly.  To make it legal to take life is not progress, but retreat.  The way forward has been pioneered by the hospice movement with enormous advances in palliative care.  That is what we should be promoting, not voluntary euthanasia as a perverse sort of medical treatment.

Compassion does not mean taking someone’s life or even helping them to take their own.  That is a negation of compassion.  That says, ‘Your life is no longer valuable.  You don’t want to live – neither do I want you to live.’  Real compassion means ‘suffering with’; it says, ‘Your life will always be valuable.  Even though you don’t think so, I know so.  That’s why I’ll stick with you – to the end.’

A hospice nurse I know tells me that they talk to their young patients about managing ‘natural’ death.  They don’t want their lives terminated, but they do want reassurance about symptom-control and pain-management.  And they can be given exactly that by palliative care experts.

But isn’t it my choice, my right, to choose when and how I die?  I don’t think so.  Suicide is not a crime, but that doesn’t make it a right, any more than owning a house is a right.  Suicide is a sad desperate act, but ultimately a selfish one.  The dead person may be beyond regrets, but those left behind have to deal with all the emotions of grief, multiplied many times over.  And in the case of assisted suicide that includes doctors and nurses whose job is to care and heal, not to harm - a terrible denial of their raison d’être and undermining of their relationship with patients.

Those of us who are disabled believe our lives have equal value with everyone.  We’re already hearing the message that we’re a ‘burden’.  We fear that legalising any form of euthanasia, whether voluntary or not, would eventually result in us and others more vulnerable being subtly pressured to agree to being put down.  We don’t want to take the road back to the jungle."


The film crew and interviewer seemed pleased with what I'd said, and Jane of course said I did well. I'm just hoping the editing will be kind to me!

Losers... and winners

Last week (actually the week before) England spectacularly lost the bid for the 2018 Football World Cup, despite the best efforts of a professional team backed up by the might of Prince William, David Cameron and David Beckham. For football fans it was disappointing of course, though I always thought it was a trifle greedy going for that just 6 years after we'll have hosted the Olympics. It seemed to me that the rationale of spreading the goodies around the world, as the FIFA committee decided, was fair enough. But what about Sepp Blatter's comment that we were bad losers? That hurt! Because it's true. For the rest of the week phone-ins and the media were full of the corruption and iniquity of FIFA. It just wasn't fair. After all our bid was "technically the best". We're "the home of football"... etc. To be honest, I could not get my head round the logic of why we should have so wanted to receive the award from "the moral sewer that is FIFA", as one paper subsequently described it, and been so miffed afterwards. Would we really have been proud to have picked it up from the sewer?

The habit of rubbishing others when you lose was repeated by Margo Macdonald when she lost the vote on her End of Life Bill in the Scottish Parliament. In the debate, she condemned Care Not Killing’s campaign as ‘cheap and unworthy’, its literature as ‘tacky’ and said that she wanted to get her ‘retaliation’ in first’. It certainly lobbied effectively. But her comments rather insulted the intelligence and integrity of her fellow MSPs.
For an example of losing graciously we needed to wait until Sunday when the redoubtable "Widdy", the Honourable Ann Widdecombe, was finally knocked out of "Strictly Come Dancing". No histrionics, no theatrical tears, no whinging about the judges' prejudice or the audience's adulation, simply a stoical acceptance of the inevitable, a handsome acknowledgement of her resourceful partner, Anton du Beke, and a farewell wave of the hand. 


And then England won! In the cricket... in Adelaide. It was a comprehensive victory, by an innings and 71 runs. The celebration was unbounded; over the top, in my opinion. After all we've not yet won the Ashes - well on the way, I concede, (three matches more to go) and I suppose we need some things to cheer. 

Scottish Parliament says No

By 85 to 16 with 2 abstentions, the Scottish Parliament has voted down Margo MacDonald's Assisted Dying Bill. A triumph of good sense over raw emotion. I'm glad. I hope the same spirit prevails in the UK for years to come.

Not Ashamed Day

Had to go to the dentist again this morning. Horrible toothache flared up yesterday. I didn't know if I'd get there, because my legs were in revolt against the Siberian winds, but Jane coaxed me down the snowy slope. And just as we were leaving the phone rang from Radio 5 Live. I'd been listening to Victoria Derbyshire's programme about Tony Nicklinson's campaign for a change in the law to assisted suicide. It was broadcast from his home and was in effect part of the launch of the Falconer Commission on Assisted Dying.

It was an emotive programme. Tony Nicklinson had a stroke 5 years ago and is in a "locked-in syndrome". He communicates by adapted computer and a clever letters board. Victoria asked why he wanted to die. "Life is just about tolerable now and I don't want to die immediately. However, I have every reason to believe that my future will be worse than it is now, as my joints seize up, my muscles atrophy and my legs swell up through lack of use. I don't want to face old age like this. And if I have an itch I can't scratch it and if my nose is blocked I can't pick it or blow it. I have to be fed like a baby, except, unlike a baby, I won't grow out of it. And worst of all I'll never know what it's like to hold my grandchildren.... In short my quality of life is rubbish. I may have life, but it's the quality of life that's important." She then asked him if there was anything that made his life worth living. His answer was "No" and mentioned some things he used to enjoy doing, and said, "No doubt those of the glass half-full persuasion will say, 'Forget those things you can't do and focus on the things you can do.' To those people I say this, 'While I don't doubt your sincerity, it's easy to say that when you can live a normal life of walking and talking, but it's a lot harder when you can do neither. It's not worth seeing people, because you just sit there like a lemon.... Of course I want to be with family and friends, but not like this."

Thinking about this as I slowly type, I feel how sad he is. Sad - and angry. He's clearly channeling his anger into the campaign. It reminded me of Debbie Purdy's emotion. "There's a fundamental injustice which needs correcting. When the right to determine where, when and how a person dies is taken away, just because that person needs help is a serious matter and the reasons why it is necessary should be closely examined."  But how sad that he couldn't believe that his family and friends might like and want his mere company! There's something called "companionable silence", which is far from lemonish.

And so I fired an email to the programme which said, "I have the same prospects as Tony Nicklinson, having Motor Neurone Disease. I definitely do not want the law changed because of the unintended dangers which would follow. I may well be a glass-half-full person, but that does not mean that my life is all easy or that I don't have dark times." Oddly, it wasn't read out! However there were some good contributions, including one from Frank, father of Michelle Wheatley, a young mum of 27 with locked-in syndrome in Stockport. I might have said a lot more, for example about this right to decide the time, manner and place of our death! Where's that suddenly come from? Suicide may not be a crime in law, but that doesn't make it a right. Smoking isn't a crime, but that doesn't make it a right. Suicide is essentially a selfish if desperate act, as it never simply affects oneself. And when you are asking others to assist suicide, you are in effect making them complicit in a killing.

Among the contributors was Rachel Hurst who is wheelchair bound with a degenerative disease and opposed to changing the law on the ground of danger to the vulnerable disabled. There was also the wily Lord Charles Falconer, chairman of the Commission on Assisted Dying (a deceptively official title); actually it's far from official, being funded by people like Terry Pratchett, a patron of the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society (Dignity in Dying), and packed with known pro-assisted-suicide panel-members. They like to call it an "independent" commission. You'll often find it referred to that way, on the principle that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it's true. It was launched yesterday. You can read about in Peter Saunders' blog: http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/2010/11/vast-majority-of-members-of-lord.html.