I believe life has been given by God and belongs to God.
Later today the House of Lords is considering the Coroners and Justice Bill. The Bill, in clauses 49-51, seeks to amend the 1961 Suicide Act to clarify the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide in relation to the internet. Such online activity has become known as ‘suicide websites’. This is an important measure that should help the emotionally vulnerable, especially young people.
But the Bill also contains measures to relax existing laws on assisted suicide. This is a highly emotional and controversial issue. I have had more letters on this issue than possibly any other in recent years. I personally do not believe that the present law on assisted suicide needs changing. It is also clear to me that this Bill is not the best way to consider this highly complex subject.
I have colleagues in the Lords who believe the existing law should be relaxed. I have huge respect for them and do not doubt that their compassionate motives are sincere. However, I still oppose assisted suicide, having considered the views of medical and legal experts and those who work in the areas of disability rights and palliative care.
Central to the Biblical message is society’s duty of care towards the more vulnerable. The Bill does not offer sufficient protection against exploitation of the terminally ill. I accept there are a small number of people who have a genuine desire to end their lives when they want to. There have been high profile cases such as Dan James, 23, a promising rugby player who travelled to a suicide clinic in Switzerland to take his own life after being paralysed from the chest down during a training accident. There has also been much publicity over Debbie Purdy, 45, who was diagnosed with primary progressive multiple sclerosis in 1995 and can no longer walk. She wants to end her life in a Swiss clinic, but fears her husband will be charged on his return to the UK.
But I believe there are many more who would come under tremendous emotional pressure to at least consider suicide, so as to relieve the burden of their care from friends and family.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton has tabled amendment 173. This seeks to protect from prosecution those individuals who “encourage” or “assist” terminally ill people to travel to another country, where assisted suicide is lawful. The recent case of Debbie Purdy, which went before the High Court, is an example. But the amendment could cause more problems then it solves. It does not define “terminal illness” or “life expectancy” of the person seeking assisted suicide. I am also concerned that it does not require a psychiatric examination to determine “mental capacity”. The amendment does not, in any way, stop the potential abuse of a vulnerable person by an “independent witness” acting on behalf of unscrupulous relatives. When Man starts to depart from God’s principles he literally starts to tie himself in knots. This is a classic illustration of that.
I practised as a criminal lawyer and Judge for many years. The Crown Prosecution Service has discretion not to prosecute in such cases, if it were deemed not to be in the public interest. In fact the CPS have never prosecuted anyone in such a case. Whilst acting within certain principles, each case of assisted suicide must be looked at on its own individual circumstances. There must be a balance of the facts of the individual case, whilst ensuring there is proper protection in law for the vulnerable.
There are two other main amendments worth mentioning. Amendment 174 seeks, in certain circumstances, to allow assisted suicide in the UK. But there are flaws also with this amendment. It does not explain how a Coroner is to “investigate the circumstances” or is to be “satisfied” that an individual has come to a “free and settled wish”. It also does not consider the issue of informed consent.
Amendment 177 wishes to change the offence of assisted suicide from murder to manslaughter. But it does not explain how it may be determined that someone has been “moved by compassion”. Neither does it define “repeated requests” and who is to determine the mental state of someone who is “suffering unbearably”. The amendment is also silent as to the method of suicide chosen.
God has a purpose for every life and has set a time for death, when that purpose is fulfilled. The circumstances of life should be under God’s control, not ours.
.. But does not exist, and therefore the majority of your argument is extremely mute.
That should have read:
.. But ‘God’ does not exist ..
Amen. What a refreshing comment, against all the moral relativism of this modern day. I hope that more Lords will understand that you are right, and will oppose these ill thought out clauses. More and more we have a government that doesn’t think through the unexpected consequences of its hastily thought out, knee jerk plans and legislation, but it is very very slow to learn that lesson.
Your comment that ‘I personally do not believe that the present law on assisted suicide needs changing.’ seems problematic because has it not already changed? The clear intent and meaning of the law as envisaged in ’61 has been effectively set aside by, as you mentioned yourself, the CPS. I’d suggest parliament is in the position of either putting that genie back in the box or to make the present situation the law with new safeguards.
As mentioned by Lady Murphy where is the evidence of coercion of the sick? Detailed academic research would be enlightening but all I’ve heard is anecdotal evidence.
I’m rather sympathetic to your points about defining “terminal illness” or “life expectancy” as these are not as simple as they might appear. I don’t however follow your point where someone has been “moved by compassion”. Ultimately a jury can decide that ‘fact’ and the CPS would be bound to consider how both their own perception and the likely perception of a jury in assessing the likelihood of sustaining a prosecution.
Keep at it Croft, you’re doing a great job here….
“God has a purpose for every life and has set a time for death, when that purpose is fulfilled. The circumstances of life should be under God’s control, not ours.”
But what, Lord Taylor, if the person assisting is the agent of God?
“When Man starts to depart from God’s principles he literally starts to tie himself in knots.”
Does this mean I can blaspheme and thereby become a contortionist?
(A completely pedantic comment, I admit. I just dislike the increasingly common cavalier use of “literally.”)
Lord Taylor, I don’t want to live under your religious teachings.
You’re point about the CPS actually supports some of these amendments I think, that the CPS has not prosecuted people for doing this, clearly indicates that they think there is a distinction between forcing someone to end their life and an assisted suicide based on compassion, with the concent of the dying person.
Lord Falconer’s ammendment really does just bring the letter of the law inline with the practice.
I also agree with the point Croft raised, where is the evidence that people would be/have been coerced into this?
Dear Lord Taylor,
Yes, our life is given to us by God and yes the circumstancesrs of our lives should be under His control and not ours.
But that is where your argument starts to fall apart.
How often is life prolonged artifically by medical intervention when if a person were left in God’s hands they would die?
Why are those of a religious persuasion so obsessed with prolonging life, almost at any cost and however poor the quality of it might be, when they are supposed to believe that the next life is better than this one?
As for those who wish to take their own lives, that should be their own choice, a matter between them and their God. Who are we to stand in their way?
I’m afraid that deep as my faith is I find a lot of what religious leaders and religious believers say on this issue complete and utter bunkum and so contradictory as to be ridiculous.
Howridiculous.
Lord Taylor,
I ask you to consider the views of those who are either not religious or not of a Christian persuasion in their faith. Is the law to only serve those who agree that God has set them a purpose and it should be his (or her!) decision as to when they die? Or, should we sensibly loosen our obsessive grip on controlling every area of British peoples’ lives as possible – even their death! Aside from making sure that any amendments protect vulnerable people, what other interest does the state have? Why is it any business of ours the way in which another person organises their own reality? If you choose to believe in God, and disagree with assisted suicide, I make no attempt to dissuade you in your views and (though I would find it difficult to understand why one would chose to continue suffering from a terminal illness) I would in no way suggest that it would be better for a person to end their life early if they believe it would be against their religion and so not in their best interests to do so. Why then are others denied a free and informed choice partially because of the views other people hold? Of course, your opinion is perfectly well held and valid by virtue of it being YOUR view. If others make a choice to end their lives or require help in ending their suffering, because that is best for them in THEIR view, who are we to render that decision incorrect?
The only way this area of the law will work is if we allow freedom of choice and autonomy; of course with the relevant safeguards. And if that offends some people, I am afraid it doesn’t seem to me to be the job of the law to not offend people. I am sure there are plenty of people who find measures allowing abortion offensive. Or those who disagree that children should be removed from their parents. Nevertheless, the law needs to cater for these eventualities. Britain is a multicultural society. Though I respect your views because you are perfectly entitled to hold them, I would find it refreshing if those in power were able to put aside their own personal beliefs to consider the issue in a more pragmatic fashion. The law ought to serve and protect; in order to do so its implications need to be considered in view of how it might best meet the needs of those who require its service. Criminalising their relatives, adding further suffering, compromising their autonomy and marginalising their needs is not the way to achieve that objective.
Lord Taylor: I fear God in the knowledge that there is an afterlife. For the epicureans come agnostics that have influence in our modern world, there is no afterlife. This is it! So the question of God, logically speaking is redundant in any discussion, you either believe or you don’t.
So it is with the matter of assisted dying.
What nobody is discussing is personal dignity itself and what are we entitled to. The constitution protects at a personal level whilst common law seeks to protect the state and the individual. Individuals are no-match for the state so the state often prevails but not always.
This matter is a clear candidate for constitutional change and what the blog’s peers ought to be doing is obtaining interviews with the House of Lords Committee on Constitutional Change and pleading the case for individual dignity as an inalienable right. Indeed the United Nations should expand its interpretation of dignity under these terms.
Ref: Epicurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
I’d like to comment on the final paragraph, which suggests that the time & circumstances of an individual’s death is in God’s hands. This is something of a paradox – there’s nothing in the article to suggest that Lord Taylor rejects *all* medical intervention (e.g. chemotherapy, defibrillation during heart attack etc). If that is true that he accepts medical intervention, it suggests that Lord Taylor is happy for the medical profession to interfere with God’s plans if their intervention is to lead to a positive outcome. Having accepted the ability of the medical profession to amend God’s plans for an individual, there doesn’t seem to be a robust argument that medical intervention is OK when it is to save a life, but not so (on Biblical grounds) when an individual chooses to seek assistance to end their life. If Lord Taylor wishes to argue that mere mortals should not interfere with God’s plans, he might need to justify that view to those seeking medical treatment for cancer or other potentially life-threatening illnesses; to those whose disabilities or disorders mean that they would not have lived past infancy or childhood without medical intervention; or to those whose quality of life would be severely impaired without medical intervention of some sort. It is, I feel, somewhat disingenuous to use Biblical rhetoric as a reason to oppose legislative clarification around assisting an individual to travel to another country to commit suicide, given that such a stance, if applied consistently, would lead to an argument that no medical intervention in any circumstance is appropriate, as it is outside God’s plan. Unless, of course, the intervention is part of God’s plan… but that works both ways!
John Taylor
you say in your post
“Central to the Biblical message is society’s duty of care towards the more vulnerable.”
I find this a very odd thing to say. Are you suggesting that Jesus said “This is my commandment, That ye care for the more vulnerable”, I never remember reading such a message. I do however recall in the Gospel of John Jesus saying “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” Perhaps you read a different translation to me or something.
I am a Quaker and I know of nothing more central to the Christian message than to ask yourself ‘what does love require of me?’ I do not see why that question should not concern you either.
Does love require you to ignore the repeated requests of a dying person for aid because you happen to disagree with them wanting what they do?
Does love require you to tell somebody that you can offer their friends and family no protection from legal prosecution should they help them to travel abroad? [You may tell them that you think it unlikely that they will be prosecuted if you wish, but as the law stands you would have to say that this could indeed happen happen and that by asking for help they could bring down a 14 year prison sentence upon their husband or wife or even their children simply for helping them board an air plane to Zurich.
Does love require you to impose your own moral principles on others, even if they do not share one shred of the religious convictions that cause you to think in this way?
Does love require you to prefer unfounded claims about the risk of vulnerable people and the protection of the current law to the best empirical and legal evidence?
Does love require you to prefer a legal fudge that has allowed 115 people travel abroad to die with no prosecutions and only a handful of police investigations, even though many of these people have no terminal illness whatsoever to a clear law that sets out a range of tests and safeguards on those travelling abroad?
The feeling in my own heart is that love can require me to do none of these things. I am a Christian, yet I supported this amendment.
I am very grateful for all your comments on this extremely sensitive subject. The amendments laid out in the Coroners and Justice Bill were opposed by 192 votes to 137. There was considerable opposition to the amendments, and I was happy to see my fellow peers voting against the amendments put forward by Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
Tom – I understand that those without faith may disagree here. However, I challenge you to step back from the religious argument, as I know some will never agree, and look at it from the perspective of potential exploitation. It does not take a religious person to believe that there would be a risk of exploitation .
Alfred – I thank you for your support. I agree with you that more needs to be done to get governments to think more carefully about legislation and to consider all the necessary and sufficient factors at hand. It seems unwise in such difficult times that the government has tried to quickly pass a law which requires considerable scrutiny. We need to be wise to the fact that issues such as assisted suicide need the consultation of all the parties involved, primary and secondary.
Croft – It would be wrong to say that the law has “already changed”, because it has not. Yes the CPS has yet to prosecute using current legislation, but the current law still gives the CPS the ability to make its own judgements on each individual case. As you rightly said we need safeguards and this was something that was absent in the amendments.
stephenpaterson- The problem with that is, who is to say that a person is an agent of God. All I have done is stated God’s word on Life.
Tharkun – What I meant by that statement is that God’s principals actually work. Throughout the Bible and history there are many stories of when Man fails to live by those standards, Man then falls.
Troika21- What I believe Lord Falconer’s amendments were missing were the necessary protection measures to stop the potential exploitation of the vulnerable. This absence of protection is testament to the fact that my fellow peers did not vote for the Bill. The CPS has the power with the current law to make its own decision, and something I believe should be left to those professionals. It is not the government’s role to play judge, but it should seek to set the framework for justice.
Howridiculous- I think your comments are misguided. God created the earth and everything in it. I personally believe that medicine should be used where available, in order to prevent suffering. After all our God is one of love. There is a thin line between those who wish to aid another in ending their life and those that persuade to end another’s life.
Zoe – My fellow peers, religious or otherwise, have made their own professional judgment on the law, and have voted against the Bill. This issue is not one of merely religious orientation, but one which encapsulates our society’s values. I understand your point but whether you believe in God or not does not justify a Bill which lacked substance. The Law cannot cater for everyone, but must set a standard on which it must uphold. A law which is not clear can lead to exploitation is quite rightly not serving and protecting our society. The great benefits of Britain is its multiculturalism, but this comes with limits.
Senex – I disagree that a discussion about God is redundant
Nicola Underdown – I believe that God has created everything. Whether this be the medicines we use or the doctors and nurses which tend to our care. I disagree that medical help is interfering with God’s plan, after all it is all his creation. God can heal the weak, but he can also use medicine as a tool to heal the wounded.
Simon – God, throughout the Bible, teaches us the standards on which to live our lives. I believe that the amendments to the Bill are not in accordance with His teachings, so that is why I opposed the amendments.
Lord Taylor: “Senex – I disagree that a discussion about God is redundant”.
I stand to be corrected by you as an honorary Doctor of Laws but your statement seems to be at odds with the Boolean duality of pairs. Specifically: (God OR (No God) = 1). Such a duality in mathematical terms is redundant one cancelling the other.
Philosophically, its like walking through a door that is simultaneously open and closed at the same time. On these terms the passage through the door is redundant because one will always arrive on the other side.
The question is, what lies on the other side of the door? It’s entirely a matter of faith!
Ref: Boolean Identities: Complimentary
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs103a/h9BAlgebra.pdf