´óÏó´«Ã½

Hi. I'm an avid reader of this blog, and have been for almost two years now, but I rarely post (twice I think!); this is mainly because I wouldn't consider myself 'gifted' enough to enter in to most of the debates that I enjoy reading so much.

On this occasion - for some unknown reason - I have felt the need to make a comment.

The issue of assisted suicide, to me, is similar in many ways to the issues of abortion, gay marriage etc., in that we have 'liberals' campaigning for them to be written into law and 'conservatives' (usually 'Bible Bashers') shouting about how sinful they are.

As a Christian, I do believe that some/all of these things to be sinful. So what should I do about it? Shout at the top of my voice at the sinners? I don't think so. To use a cliché, that's not what Jesus would do. He instead got beside these people; he talked to them with Grace - he *loved* them. The ones who made the judgmental proclamations where the Pharisees - and we all know what He thought about them!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the world, especially NI, would be a much better place if we, who say we follow Jesus, actually did what He told us to do: LOVE each other; feed the poor etc., and spent less time hitting people over the head with our over-sized King James's.

[/rant]

Jason

welcome jason. From your comment here I'd say you are more than qualified to comment and enter the debate!

Hi Jason

Good to hear from you. You say you are a Christian and that you think Christians should actually do what Jesus told us to do.

What is it then that makes you think you have nothing to contribute? Sounds to me as if you ought to comment more often.

Peter

Re Peter post 3.

I don't think that I have nothing to contribute, I just believe Jesus told us to 'do' - not to talk about doing! (Or, to continue my rant, to talk about and criticize what others are doing!!)

Jason

Jason
I'm with Augustine and Peter- you should join in more often.

Graham Veale

Jason

I'm with you 100 percent on the doing bit. And I'm with you 100 percent on the grace bit too. All I meant was that you shouldn't feel 'not gifted enough' to join in. I'm certainly not gifted enough, nor, more importantly, gracious enough.

You comments will be very welcome.

What I find interesting about (the sometimes hot and heavy) debating here is that it has been an opportunity for me to tease out my thinking with others, Christian and non-christian, and in doing so it helps me better figure out how to live this life you've been talking about.

Jason, you seem to enjoy reading the debate so you should certainly join in it... welcome, by the way.

I'd encourage people to think about the difference between 'legality' and 'morality' here. Jason says he thinks euthanasia may be sinful. Margo McDonald does not believe that to be the case. So whose opinions should be represented in law? The majority? I don't necessarily think so.

Because there is a difference between personal morality at the individual level and legality at the collective level. The latter should permit freedom for the former: what is legal may not necessarily be moral, but since morality is an individual decision (Margo's or Jason's), and neither is infringing on the equal rights of others, it should be legal.

So there is a right to one's own life: unless the government owns your life, it cannot tell you that you can't end it. Jason is perfectly entitled to persuade Margo that it is sinful for her to do so, but not to prevent her in law.

Fair enough points, Peter. I also have the problem of not having enough hours in the day at the moment - usually a quick read of other people's posts is all I have time for!!

John I totally agree with your post number 7; especially in the last paragraph. And with a great emphasis on 'persuade' rather than 'shout at'. Although in saying that, even trying to persuade can be going too far in some cases!

One thing that must be remembered and considered in this case in particular (i.e. that of assisted suicide) is that of the potential abuse of this law by people who would have a much easier life if they were to 'help' their relative/spouse/whatever die. This, I feel, will be its greatest barrier to legalisation - maybe rightly so.

It would, however, be difficult (and probably wrong) for me to argue it from that point of view, given that I have the bias of believing it to be fundamentally wrong in the first place.

Jason

Jason,

Why should a Christian believe that assisted suicide is "fundamentally wrong"? You believe in life after death, don't you, so all that the suicidal person is doing is returning to their Maker sooner rather than later. What is the big deal about that? Surely the Maker will know the reasons for this early exit (ie. some horrible disease), and will welcome the suicide home with open arms?

You should have more sympathy for the poor wretches in these horrible situations and allow them the chance to escape. The Maker knows all the facts and will understand why they hurried home, rather than prolong the pain and suffering. Don't forget, the Maker is kind and compassionate, so he/she will be glad that the pain and suffering is over.

oldredeyes, If you had read all of my post(s) you would realise that I have no intention or preventing people doing this if it becomes law.

I hold, personally, the position that any taking of life is wrong. I don't, however, seek to inflict that point of view on anyone else.

Jason

A very good /rant Jason54a It is good to hear a Christian speaking with Wisdom and Love. How can we as Christians make a difference to the World if we are not prepared to show Love and Grace in practical ways to help our fellow man. I think it was Paul who said in Romans: "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour therefore love is the fulfilling of Gods law" or put simply "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" it is easy to say these words and hard to do in practice but the World I think would be a better place if we all at least thought about it. .

I agree Jboy - Jason joins people like Peter Morrow and Portwyne on this blog who are sensible Christians to whom love and making the world better comes before judgement and fire-breathing. As something of a post-evangelical (in tone as well as in theology!) I admire that. At the same time I can't help but agree with oldredeyes who asks why Creator God would not entirely understand the decisions of his creations to end their lives early given the suffering.

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away", people say. Giveth what? Suffering and agony, for these people. 'Only God decides when', people say. But we never say that when we can help, for instance when we can use chemotherapy to intervene when God allows someone to be afflicted with cancer. No, we say let's get them into chemo and fix them up! Eyesight bad? Let's fix it! Bad liver? Let's transplant! Yet somehow if the situation happens to be beyond our scope to deal with through medical science, we think God wants us to postpone the inevitable for as long as possible. I think that's faulty logic.

Thank you for the compliment JW.

I think there are all sorts of problems with the legalisation of assisted suicide and this may well be one of those areas where shades of grey should predominate.

If a person is willing to help someone else die, is strong enough to take on that responsibility then surely they should also be willing and strong enough to cope with the legal scrutiny that, I believe, should accompany their actions.

I do not feel there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with suicide and long ago determined that, if faced with painful or debilitating illness, I would seek to end my own life rather than endure needless suffering and indignity. I do not believe, however, that I could place the burden of assisting me on another whether that person be partner, relative, friend or medical practitioner.

John, you raise a very valid point.

On reflection, I suppose I must admit that I probably haven't completely thought through my position on this sort of thing (A consequence of my age as much as anything else!). What I posted was really just my gut reaction. The first thing that is springing in to my mind that I/we need to consider is the translation of the sixth commandment. Is it "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder"? A big question. One which I don't have the first clue where to even begin on.

I would like to address your point about God 'allowing' someone to be afflicted with Cancer. I know that you wouldn't hold this view (you're a 'post-evangelical' after all!), but there are some people who do. I believe this to be one of the greatest un-truths about God that has ever existed: that He is in Sovereign control of everything that happens on Earth. He gave that up when he created free will. Free Will is the reason there are horrible things like cancer, poverty, genocide etc etc in the world.

This is where the point I was making earlier about not being gifted enough to post on here - I have so much stuff in my head but I struggle to communicate it properly - I don't even know if I agree with some of the stuff I've typed!!

My ramblings above are totally incomplete and in need of a lot more thought. Feel free to ignore them until such times as I've figured out how to word them properly!

Jason

Jason-

Cool. I'm just glad you're reflecting upon these matters; so many Christians don't even bother. On free will: it could still be said that God "allows" cancer, though, couldn't it? In other words he has the power to stop it but chooses not to, because he wants us to have free will (and obviously extends to cancer cells the same privilege!). It's a complex topic, and there are no easy answers (google "problem of evil", about which philosophers and theologians have been yelling at each other for millennia!).

it is her's decision, when she wants ot die...

Jason - welcome to the blog, you will have a lot to contribute I am sure.

I suspect that the vast majority of the posters here are not seeking to convince anyone of anything, rather we are using dialogue to clarify, for ourselves, what it is that we actually think. I have found it very useful in that respect and I hope you will too.

Your points are expressed with great clarity but equally importantly you are going with your 'gut' - keep doing that and I will look forward to following your contributions.

Van speaks of the "Inarticulate speech of the heart" - that's where truth lies and the most lucid and eloquent poster barely even approximates it.

Jason:
As one of those 'liberals' I have less objection to you hitting me over the head with your over-sized king James than with any of the other translations. It, at least, has the poetry to enjoy.

Michael Irwin, a past chairman of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, who appeared in the Panorama programme, will be speaking to the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland on 8th January about the Irish Living Will which he has created.

He has taken three people to the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland and not been prosecuted. It's also good to hear the news that the parents of Daniel James, the rugby player, who took him to Zurich to die, will also not be prosecuted.

"I think there are all sorts of problems with the legalisation of assisted suicide and this may well be one of those areas where shades of grey should predominate"

i think that that is totally right.

It has now become clear that each case will be examined individually by the DPP, and that genuine consensual assisted suicide will not be prosecuted.

I think that's a sensible course. I think it's also sensible to retain the option, under law, to prosecute in certain circumstances. That's surely the only way in which you can combat and deter the type of scenarios that I'm sure we can all imagine; of elederly people feeling pressured, or feeling that they ask too much of their families.

If the DPP fails to prosecute then the law becomes redundant and in effect legislation is being written by the DPP instead of the legislature.

There is a big difference between someone refusing treatment and someone getting a doctor to kill them. Firstly, the person is responsible for the former. In the latter case they bring in a doctor and he becomes their killer.

The distinction between morality and legality may be clear in theory and Irish Catholic Bishops have been arguing this line disastrously since the 1970s, invented by Professors McDonagh and Hannon. But, and it's a big but, a lot of people, take their moral guidance from the law - and when things become lawful they tend to be seen as moral, then they become a good in themselves, and a right, and anyone who disagrees becomes guilty of intolerance. I guarantee if this legislation comes in you will have people insisting that doctors carry out these instructions, even if against their own conscience.

I heard the discussion on SS this morning. I thought it was imbalanced 2-1 against Michael Irwin. John Larkin appeared again, in his customary thin disguise as a 'human rights lawyer', to tell us why control over your own life wasn't a human rights issue but that the issue was one of Thomist philosophy. I have yet to hear him on SS defend a right! Remind me to give him a wide berth if I ever need a human rights lawyer.

Yeah, I suppose it is pretty difficult to make a panel of 3 even.

Peter:
A panel of two or four could have made it more even. Why were here 3?

Peter:

There was a cleric and a secularist, plus a lawyer.

If the lawyer was meant to be there to give a purely legal slant on it, then he failed miserably because he was entirely opposed to assisted dying and said so. In fact, John Larkin has been on the programme several times and his illiberal and religious bias has been apparent on each occasion.

He is laughably introduced as a human rights lawyer. I certainly won't ever be contacting him to defend mine.

Hi Brian

I gave up hoping for what we might call fairness in life years ago.

You ask why there were three, I don't know, why don't you ask William or his research team. I seem to remember though that a couple of weeks back you were a panel of one.

Really, Brian I don't see the point in endlessly trying to balance everything, I mean where do we stop. I suspect the are more points of view in Ireland than there are shades of green.

It's like the endlessly ridiculous qualifying of statements and putting of alternate points of views on Good Morning Ulster; my view, just let the presenters get on with asking questions without them always having to think of 'balance'. I mean sometimes it's so absurd that they come across as having to put the expected response or view of someone who isn't even on the programme.

It's nuts!

BTW are you telling us that you would wish to limit what the lawyer could and could not say?

Peter:

Would you say all that if it was a largely secular programme in which the religious input was only occasional and often outnumbered by secularists? I doubt it very much.

You know as well as I do, and as those associated with the programme do, that it has a distinct religious bias. Even the discussion of 'Religion and Ethics' books of the year was largely about prayer books and books written by clergymen.

Sunday Sequence is a religious and ethical discussion programme. What's brian's beef?

Jovial:

My beef, as you put it, is that the religious view is given preference over the secular one. It enables you to think that it is a weaker case and enables you to make the comment that you did on the books thread that the pro-euthanasia panellist failed to make his case. if there had been four or even only two, then he would have been able to pout the human rights case. As it was, the 'human rights' case was put by an opponent of euthanasia.

Brian, there is no 'human rights case' when it comes to euthanasia. Human rights activists are on both sides of the debate. Believing in human rights does not require someone to support active euthanasia. The secularist was given chances to speak and he said very little. More experienced speakers, such as politicians, take the opportunity with both hands and make a strong case. This guy had to have the points teased out of him! Sorry, Brian, this was a dud of a human rights case mate.

Brian

Would I say all these things if it were a largely secular programme?

Yes. If it were a largely secular programme I would know what I was tuning into, why then would I expect a religious point of view?

As I said, I don't expect to see much fairness, nor in fact do I think it is always necessary. I credit people with enough intelligence to work out what they are listening to. I mean in this case should some protest that there wasn't a 'Protestant' voice. Or an Islamic voice, or a Jewish one. Or a medical one. Or an ex-christian one, you know, someone who has changed their mind. If some did I would think that odd as well.

You see I guess the fact that Cardinal Keith O'Brien was on SS has something to do with this thread. Or we could argue that William ought to have found a secularist voice arguing against euthanasia, or a religious one arguing for it.

You go on to say that 'bias' on SS enables people like JovialPTL to, "think that it is a weaker case and enables you to make the comment that you did on the books thread that the pro-euthanasia panelist failed to make his case." I would have thought that PTL could make up his own mind, and I'm sure he's not in the business of 'counting heads' to help him figure out what he thinks.

I see too that you chose to ignore the point about you being a panel of one.

Peter:

There isn't a largely secular programme, one that views the world from a deliberately secular view. If there was and there was an occasional religious voice permitted for 4 or 5 minutes to imply some weird and self-deceptive notion of 'balance', I suspect that you would be annoyed at the unfair treatment meted to the religious perspective.

The current position does mean that most discussion of ethical issues is skewed in one direction and the constant drip-drip of that perspective is bound to have an impact.

Northern Ireland is a largely conservative and religious society.
Most people are opposed to euthanasia because that is what their churches tell them. Period.
The media does not challenge this in any significant way. It largely reinforces it. So let's not pretend otherwise.

When did you last hear or see a balanced local discussion on the topic of euthanasia? When has it been discussed in our local media without some clerical or religious input?

Do let me know. Very rarely, if ever, I suspect.

Brian

I see we've moved now from 'largely secular' to 'deliberately secular', whatever, but there's no point in you complaining about the non existence of a hypothetical programme when it was raised by you in the first place!

Nor is there much point in me giving my view on the matter if you already know more than me about how I would respond to such a programme. Funny how you seem to know how PTL and myself might respond or how we might be influenced.

Funny too how your 'drip drip' argument is exactly the same as that used by churches regarding their view of morality.

And you suggest that most people believe things because their church tells them. Strange that, when church attendance and religious designation is in decline. An occurrence incidentally that the church often regards as evidence of secularization.

Personally I tend to ignore statistics.

As I tend to ignore head counts on TV and radio.

And interesting that in arguing for 'balance' you ask, "When has it been discussed in our local media without some clerical or religious input?"

My view on this is that the church doesn't need the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to get it's message out, so when it's not invited to the party I don't get particularly worried.

Brian, why are you arguing about the number of people on the SS panel when you could be making an argument about what you believe? I'm more than happy to discuss your diversion, but why you are getting stuck on it, I don't know.

I'm not sure either that the SS team would appreciate the implication that the invitation to Dr Michael Irwin was, "some weird and self-deceptive notion of 'balance'", but I'm sure they don't need me to defend them?

BTW was it lonely when you were a panel of one?!

The question I ask myself is 'In what sense could Brian's voice, that of the humanist we know and love, be truly called a secular voice?'.

It is quite obvious that Brian is a deeply religious individual, atheist of-course, but far from secular.

Brian listens to SS, contributes to this blog, belongs to an organisation which provides support in times of distress and rituals to mark significant life and death events, he even appears capable of believing (with near evangelical zeal) impossible and absurd ideas (that there is innate goodness in man or some similarly phrased twaddle).

Humanism is merely a godless religion with its own dogma - dogma informed by supposed rational but deeply flawed ideas about man. Like all dogmatic religions it is dangerous when it seeks to influence public policy on the basis of its beliefs and the gung-ho support for legalisation of assisted suicide is a prime example of the fundamentalist approach.

Peter:

Answer my question. When have you heard a discussion of euthanasia on the local media in which the case for it has been given as much as the case against?

Portwyne:

Well, it all depends on what you mean by 'religion'!

Ah, so it's "gung-ho" support for assisted suicide, is it? Might it not just be a reasonable defence of the individual's right to control his own life, for goodness sake!

after all, you don't believe in a God. So why on earth should it matter whether people want to determine their own end point?

The opposition to voluntary euthanasia is another example of religious power. It should and will be defeated. How dare anyone or any institution tell me that I cannot die when I choose. The bloody nerve of it!

Brian - I refer you to my post # 14 on this thread - I believe very strongly that people should have the right to end their own lives when they choose - it is not a person's determination of their own end-point that concerns me - it is the involvement of third parties.

The law subjects to scrutiny the actions of any person who is involved in the death of another. That is right and proper.

I believe a person facing an unbearable existence and contemplating suicide needs first and foremost psychiatric evaluation and appropriate counselling. At present ethical constraints require the professionals who would be involved to intervene actively to prevent self-harm. Those constraints prevent a full and proper examination of the whole situation and the sort of support which could go with a person right up to the time of death.

I would support the removal of those ethical constraints and agree that not everyone who actually assists a suicide should be prosecuted - I think it would be a negligent, irrational, and conviction-led decision, however, simply to legalise assisted suicide.

You are right, by the way to say I do not believe in God. Belief in something is an attempt to connect that which we understand intuitively with our rational perceptions - something which I would consider essentially impossible and the attempt to do so misguided.

It seems to me that the legal process could benefit from some practical common sense here. Perhaps the law should state that anytime someone assists another in a suicide it needs to be fully documented in video form with a legal affidavit from both the assister and the assistee that they agree to it happening? That seems as foolproof as any other legal requirements. Also, I agree with Portwyne that it seems sensible to require a psych-eval first: thus with three verified signatures and a video of the event, courts could be in no reasonable doubt about either the intent of the patient, the soundness of his or her mind and the legitimacy of the event itself.

Portwyne:

Sorry, I hadn't read your post 14.
But I do so wish that you would stop trying to psychoanalyse me. You don't know me, any more than I know you, so stick to the arguments.

Humanism is not a dogma, but the antithesis of reductionist dogma. We don't have rigid rules but flexible principles.

I agree with much of your post 36 and John's 37.

Brian

This is getting daft. You ask if I have heard a programme where the case for has been given as much as the case against. Well, I haven't noticed one, but then as I explained already, I tend not to go in for head counts. What I can say however is that lots of other people do seem to notice; it seems as though the ´óÏó´«Ã½ gets criticism from just about all perspectives for 'imbalance'. They're too religious, or not religious enough. They're too nationalist, or too unionist or too liberal, too high brow, too low brow, but I guess that's what happens when you're trying to please everyone, you please no one, hazard of the job description I suppose.

As I said, I'm not counting, and my post 23 was supposed to be a light hearted response about the 'oddness' of the number 3.

On the point of the actual topic, what bothers me immensely is how we might find ourselves capable of permitting the 'right to die' for some (i.e. those who are ill, which is what the debate appears to focus on) while at the same time continuing to, rightly, express our horror when others take the same course of action, I thought we were supposed to be trying to prevent suicide.

Peter, you say:

"...I thought we were supposed to be trying to prevent suicide."

Who is "we"? I understand that people feel obliged to tell suicidal people that life IS worth living, that they'll get over whatever negative emotions are influencing their decisions, etc. But at the same time we must recognise two things:

A) that the individual is -rightly- in control of his/her own life, and whether or not they want to continue to live it is their choice alone;

and

B) that we cannot assess the value of living life for someone else (in other words we may find life very fulfilling, but that may not always be shared).

Brian I can assure you I was not attempting to psychoanalyse you. The term psychoanalysis covers a range of approaches to the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses - I would not dream of suggesting that your emotional well-being was in anything less than thoroughly robust good shape! In any case I tend to think of psychoanalysis as little more than reflexology for the mind: a form of leisured self-indulgence which is only occasionally harmful.

My analysis was not of you, but of your ideas and your faith (Humanism). That analysis was in the context of your perception of an imbalance in the composition of the broadcast panel. You seem to regard the Humanist position as secular and it is essentially that assertion with which I would take issue. I would not consider that adding or substituting a Humanist would in fact change the ratio of religious to secular panellists.

I would argue that you are not actually secular but rather are merely differently religioned. If a truly secular view were required William would need to get a bare-riffed millie from outside a Belfast night-club or a cigar-smoking property-developer with a sideline in rack-renting.

John - your argument is badly flawed. A video and affadavit signing is flawed because we do not know the pressure being applied to the euthanised person away from the camera or the signing room. As for psychological evaluations, well psychology is less than precise at the best of times, and it's fair to say that most people who are considering killing themselves will at least be suffering from some sort of depression - if you demand a total clean bill of health mentally before you permit assisted suicide it becomes a paradox as if someone has absolutely no mental illness the chance they will want to commit suicide is slight. It's inevitable that pain and suffering will engender some mental illness. People who are fully sound of mind generally do not consider killing themselves. Even if we dispute that, as I state, psychological evaluations are less than perfect, much of psychology is pseudoscience and theories which regularly get discredited years down the line.

For all I know, there may be more scientologists or jehovah's witnesses in the UK than members of the british humanist society. There are certainly more muslims, hindus and sikhs. Why is brian proposing a sectarian headcount as a guide to broadcasting?