Head of Public Affairs gives speech on Assisted Dying Bill

Don Horrocks gives speech for Christian Broadcasting Council

28 April 2006

In May this year Lord Joffe will introduce a Bill into the House of Lords “to enable an adult who has capacity and who is suffering unbearably as a result of a terminal illness to receive medical assistance to die at his own considered and persistent request”. The Bill is expected to receive considerable public support.

I have been asked to say something about the importance of sanctity of life. The relevant background here is one of Enlightenment individualism, Romanticism and now post-modern liberalism which places a premium on the illusion of human autonomy and choice and as a consequence ‘the right to be killed’ or ‘the right to die when I choose’. Ours is a society in which morality, as part of the legacy of modernism, is increasingly being externalised. Our culture has shifted its control mechanisms from the sphere of internal discipline into that of external regulation. We have developed a rule-bound mindset which assumes that we can legislate our way out of trouble. In the process we have nurtured, as the philosopher Onora O'Neill has suggested in her work on the issue of trust, a “culture of suspicion”. In it a counterproductive and self-reinforcing cycle imposes increasingly stringent forms of inspection, control and auditing only to find, paradoxically, that they appear to lessen rather than increase general trustworthiness. The externalisation of morality constitutes a problem that is insidious and deep rooted. What the Christian faith has to offer is a re-intemalisation of that morality by revealing a God who through his incarnation in Jesus Christ crowns the integral dignity of the human person, is involved in our daily dealings, and is intimately concerned with the mess of the world as well as its science and its matter. God joins with us relationally in our pain and difficulties, rather than being some outside force offering dramatic deus ex machina solutions. It is in this real world, rather than in some illusory anaesthetic world of instant answers, that Christ offers healing and new life.

There is now evidence of increasing sympathy for the right to die amongst the British public. Most patients do not want it – even amongst those terminally ill it’s a tiny minority. It’s the healthy that want it! In a recent 2003 opinion poll a majority of doctors oppose euthanasia and 75%+ said they would not carry it out even if it were legal.

So-called ‘Patient Assisted Dying’ aims to legalise assisting patients to die – in effect, state-approved, legalised killing – notwithstanding the impression conveyed that killing might, in certain circumstances, be merciful and compassionate. Relief of pain is usually inextricably mixed up with euthanasia by those who advocate it. But why? Pain relief is part and parcel of everyday medicine. We do not need a new Act of Parliament for doctors and nurses to provide pain relief for their patients. Yet the impression with the Joffe Bill is that anyone opposed to it is somehow in favour of pain and suffering. The Evangelical Alliance believes the social consequences of passing such a Bill would be incalculable, especially for the sick and disabled, the vulnerable and those who might feel themselves to be a burden on families and society. In a short space of time euthanasia could easily be offered routinely to patients. Who decides what ‘unbearable suffering’ is? Euthanasia would become a ‘symptom control choice’ – one option of ‘treatment’ amongst others. Not everything in life can be reduced to a matter of apparent choice – choices always carry consequences. As we have clearly maintained throughout this debate, ‘care’ and ‘killing’ can never be synonyms.

A real concern is that killing is cheaper than caring. That killing becomes a form of ‘treatment’. Many people will feel in due course that they have to pass a personal ‘MOT’ to avoid being ‘bumped off’. Rather, Christians stress the benefits of palliative care and the hospice movement to care for those suffering from severe pain and terminal illness. This makes euthanasia unnecessary. It is crucial to fund and expand the hospice movement instead of destroying it. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated, euthanasia is “An act of violence, an attempt to take possession of the future”. Christians could never endorse it. Why not? Because it contravenes God’s Commandment and only God has power to give life and to take it away (Job 1.21). Human beings cannot choose their time of death. Only God can do that. If men were to choose it would usher in an era of social engineering.

Of course, for those who suffer themselves or who have to endure the pain of loved ones suffering the emotional conflict should not be underestimated. But ours is the first generation that has the means and the will to offer a apparently easy life and death choice. Despite what some will see as the supposed reasonableness of such an offer, we need to be careful not to open a Pandora’s box that can never again be shut. The Abortion Act is a good example of slippery slope – it was originally designed only for extreme cases and to be used sparingly. But it was ‘foothold legislation’ and now we see the results some 40 years later – on demand killing of the unborn.

According to the Word of God life has intrinsic and inestimable worth and value – far above suffering and loss of dignity. Traditionally we have called this ‘sanctity of life’. This is how Christians answer the new questions that would never have been asked before like, Why is it wrong to kill people? Is it always wrong to kill people? Are some lives more worthwhile than others?

Western morality derives from the sanctity of life principle which in turn derives from the Judeo-Christian worldview that life is set aside because it is created specially and uniquely by God – i.e., that human life is intrinsically worthwhile – there is no other justification for its value than the fact that it is life and created in the image of God – see, for example, Psalm 139. Consequently, human beings have a duty to preserve life as evidenced by the hippocratic oath. Sadly, in recent years, two factors have challenged this received view: a) Western society has become more dismissive of religious claims, and b) medical technology has blurred the boundaries between life and death. As a result, a rival utilitarian philosophical viewpoint has emerged which argues pre-eminently for preservation only of the ‘valuable life’ or the ‘quality life’. This worldview places a human-centred emphasis on the so-called right to die and posits consciousness as the determinative factor regarding the worth or dignity of a life. Effectively, it diminishes human being and personhood and removes the absoluteness of life, relativising it in favour of peoples’ own preferences and illusory desire for control – or perhaps occupying the place of God. Or yields control into the hands of others!

You can either open the door to euthanasia or keep it shut. There is no middle ground. If you open the door just a little soon it will be wide open. Euthanasia must never become part of normal medical practice. Society must safeguard the right to life as well as maintain the inviolable sanctity of life.

We have had much experience of campaigning on a range of issues and we need to work hard to win hearts and minds. If we can’t do it over this fundamental right to life issue then we are in trouble. The key is to mobilise a largely busy, preoccupied, sleepwalking population, including the Christian majority. What you can do? Contact your MP, write to Lords and to the Prime Minister. Support the ‘Care Not Killing Campaign’. Sign the petition.

Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the Evangelical Alliance.