Tag: Ethics

5 Non-Religious Reasons to Oppose Euthanasia

In previous posts I have explained why Christian Social Teaching has always opposed something like euthanasia. In light of the Bill being presented to Parliament, however, here are five reasons to oppose it that are not founded upon spiritual convictions.

In previous posts I have explained why Christian Social Teaching has always opposed something like euthanasia. In light of the Bill being presented to Parliament, however, here are five reasons to oppose it that are not founded upon spiritual convictions.

Before proceeding further, I generally avoid all public political controversy. As a pastor my job is not to take sides between different political parties. In this case, however, the issue is recognised as one of conscience and not political allegiance. Moreover, given how many could die as a result of this Bill, I strongly urge people to do all they can to resist its implementation.

This is the content of my own letter to my MP. You can write to your MP by following this link.

Dear [MP],

I write concerning the Assisted Suicide Bill due to be before the House of Commons later this week. For the following reasons I urge you in the strongest possible terms to vote against this bill in any form:

  1. It places the aged, ill or vulnerable in an impossible and damaging position.
  2. All experience of euthanasia from elsewhere in the world demonstrates that the proposed safeguards and limitations rapidly come under pressure and are revised, almost inevitably to widen the scope of euthanasia.
  3. It fundamentally changes the nature of healthcare provision for all and, in particular, the relationship between a doctor and patient.
  4. It undermines the provision and funding of proper social care and particularly end-of-life care.
  5. Terminating the lives of the vulnerable, sick and elderly is intrinsically unethical, attacks the assumptions that have underpinned social care and the welfare state, and will have repercussions for the rest of society.

I briefly elaborate on each of these reasons below.

The Burden on the Vulnerable

The introduction of euthanasia for patients places an intolerable burden on them precisely at the point at which they are most in need of care and protection. The elderly and vulnerable often feel an acute sense of guilt or shame at the burden they perceive their care or situation to be placing on others. The pressure, intended or otherwise, to take a step to end their lives not because they truly want to but because they think it better for everyone else will be inevitable and powerful.

This is not a fanciful suggestion. Following the introduction of similar legislation in Oregon, 50% of people opting to end their lives cited the perceived burden upon others as a reason for their choice.[1] This is a terrible and invidious position for us to place those individuals in. Moreover, this position will be widely known and recognised. The physicians responsible for ending the patient’s life will therefore know that there is, in all likelihood, a 50% chance that they are doing it because they feel that they should in order to decrease the burden on others and not because they wish to end their own suffering.

Any lawyer can relate cases in which elderly people are placed either directly, or indirectly, under pressure to make transactions that are disadvantageous to themselves because they feel that it would lessen the burden on others or feel an inappropriate duty to do so. We have developed large legal frameworks to try and protect them precisely because we recognise that someone in that position is vulnerable to feeling under pressure to make such decisions even if that is not the intention of anyone else involved. Property transactions are reversible and the individual involved can be protected, to some extent at least, retrospectively. Euthanasia cannot be reversed. It is final. If even one person were to die because they felt under undue pressure to do so s then this Bill would be a disaster. In reality that situation cannot be avoided and the Bill should not pass.

Expanding Terms of Reference

Experiments with euthanasia in other comparable countries have shown that its safeguards and terms of reference are often rapidly and dramatically revised so as to expand the  scenarios in which it is available. For example:

  • In Oregon, the model proposed for the UK, the law was reinterpreted to apply to individuals who would otherwise live with medical treatment.[2] This includes illnesses such as diabetes.
  • In Canada euthanasia has been offered to people as an alternative to a new wheelchair ramp,[3] for those seeking help to live independently at home,[4] and even for otherwise healthy people suffering with depression or suicidal thoughts.[5]

Noone envisaged this being the situation when Oregon or Canada introduced euthanasia. This was not part of the intended outcome. But once euthanasia has been introduced as an acceptable method of treating certain conditions the pressure to expand its use to other situations has proved irresistible. There is no reason at all to believe that in some way the UK would prove to be different from others who have followed this path.

Change in the Nature of Healthcare Provision

The fundamental settlement that underpins healthcare provision in the modern West is the principle that doctors seek to heal their patients. The patients, by contrast, agree to submit to practices that in other situations would be intolerable (being cut open, ingesting unknown substances etc) because they know that the doctor will always act to promote their physical good. Euthanasia fundamentally undermines this relationship by introducing a layer of ambiguity into it. 

It is perfectly possible to imagine a scenario in which a particularly sick or depressed individual is not honest with his doctor for fear of the conversation it would open up. Or that it would change the nature of consultations to know that in some circumstances the person prescribing your medication would also administer drugs intending to kill you.

Moreover, the impact on medical professionals would be incalculable. They would be required intentionally to terminate their patients’ lives, the exact opposite of the calling they initially undertook. It radically alters the nature of the doctor’s profession and will inevitably have profound impacts on the mental, spiritual and moral wellbeing of those involved. I have not seen any long-term studies done of the impact of altering policy on those responsible for carrying it out. How can it be right to put medical professionals in this position without any sense of how it will impact them?

It is grossly irresponsible to proceed with a Bill that could have these profound consequences.

Undermining the Provision of Palliative and Social Care

The proposed reforms would undermine the provision of end-of-life care and social care. As the Health Secretary has noted,[6] end-of-life care and social care are already badly underfunded and poorly managed. The effect of this is that many of those involved would feel a pressure to euthanasia because of the sense of burden they might be to a system already under pressure and because the care they are receiving is not itself of a high enough quality. Such a situation would be unacceptable.

We saw an example of individuals making the decision to sacrifice themselves because they felt a pressure to do so in order to reduce the burden upon healthcare systems during COVID. It has been well documented that many, including many with signs of early-stage cancer, refused to go to hospital or to GPs because of the sense that the services were under strain and it was their duty not to go. It is at least possible, if not likely, that many would feel the same given the state of end-of-life care and the well documented pressures it places on the healthcare system’s resources.

Moreover, the provision of a relatively cheap alternative to end-of-life care will almost inevitably become attractive if not for the individuals involved then for the culture implicit in the systems themselves. This is not to say that any particular person would choose to push people towards euthanasia instead of offering them expensive palliative or other care. It is, however, likely that that pressure would begin to be felt simply because of the financial and other factors implicit in the system.

Finally, on this point, the presence of euthanasia as a relatively inexpensive alternative to properly funded and reformed end-of-life care would significantly weaken the position of those arguing for that funding and reform.

Long Term Consequences for Society

Finally, euthanasia will have long-term and as yet unexplored consequences for society as a whole. Modern British society is founded upon an intuition that all lives are valuable and are worth preserving. That is why we have policies of redistributive taxation, welfare provision, and healthcare for all. There is a fundamental understanding that all people are worth caring for, even at our expense.

Euthanasia damages this understanding in the most fundamental way. It is founded upon a noble desire to help those who are suffering. Yet it does so by ending those lives we would otherwise consider priceless. It introduces the idea that at a certain point it is better off if someone’s life does not continue and that we have the right to end it. Such a position attacks the principles that underpin the rest of the society we have built. 

Viewed in this light the developments in Oregon and Canada are unsurprising. Once we have conceded that it is legitimate to end life in some circumstances, that assisted suicide is a proper tool for public policy, then why not deploy it in other situations. Almost inevitably the consequences of this shift will not be felt uniformly. They will be experienced most harshly by those from minorities, the poor and the vulnerable; changes like this always are.

For all of these reasons I strongly urge you not to support this Bill.

I am, of course, happy to talk about any of the issues raised in this letter.

Rev. Phil Fellows,Hersham Baptist Church, 
80 Vaux Crescent, Hersham, Surrey, KT124HD

[1] Oregon Health Authority, Public Health Division, Center for Health Statistics (2021) Death with Dignity Act, 2020 Data Summary, p12. See https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year23.pdf

Accessed 19 Jan 2023.

[2] https://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/articles/six-months-redefined/

[3] https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/paralympian-trying-to-get-wheelchair-ramp-says-veterans-affairs-employee-offered-her-assisted-dying-1.6179325

[4] https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/chronically-ill-man-releases-audio-of-hospital-staff-offering-assisted-death-1.4038841

[5] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/vancouver-hospital-canada-assisted-suicide-maid-b2390914.html

[6] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/07/end-of-life-care-assisted-dying-health-secretary-streeting/

Christian Social Ethics 1: Christians and the Environment

How do Christians think about the ethics and politics of the environment? By caring for and using creation with love for one another and respect for God.

Christians should care for and use creation with love for one another and respect for God.

Introduction

Often when we come to talk about ethics- how we should behave or treat one another- we focus on the very personal (such as how should I treat the neighbour I don’t get on with?).

For the next few weeks, however, I want to take a step back and think about how the Bible and the Church speak to the big questions we face.1

The Church has a long and beautiful history of thinking and teaching about how we should view social issues – how we should think about the environment, about the value and dignity of life, about care for the poor or work or the family. These are big questions that we need to learn to think about from God’s perspective and then to act, pray or vote in accordance with what we believe to be in accordance with the way God views the issue rather than the tradition, prejudices or perspectives we inherit or absorb from others. 

Before we start, I want to give a health warning.

Christian social teaching does not fit neatly into our political categories. Sometimes it might sound left-ish, sometimes right-ish. It sits in the middle or, more precisely, embraces and challenges them both.

My aim is not to tell you how to vote or anything like it. Rather I want to suggest the types of questions we should be asking of our politicians and proposing some of the values we can use to evaluate their answers.

More profoundly, however, questions of creation care, race or care for the poor are not just political, they are deeply personal. One of the most important principles in Christian social teaching is that solutions should always be as local and personal as possible – we are first of all asking not “what should the government do?” but “what can I do?”

This week I want to think about how the Bible and the Church help us to understand how we should relate to it and, in particular, what it means for us to be stewards of creation.

  1. The Heart of Christian Teaching

How things go wrong

Human attitudes to Creation go wrong in two ways.

First we can have too high a view of nature. At its most extreme this takes the form of a paganism that worships nature as a God. More often in the modern world this distortion tends to place care for the environment as the highest good, above the welfare of human beings or anything else. 

This attitude can tend to lead to a knee-jerk hostility to development or scientific progress. In its more extreme forms it explicitly prioritises ideas or policy solutions that are anti- human for the sake of being pro-environment.

All of these distortions here at their heart the error of valuing creation too highly – of making the created world on the same or higher level as its Creator.

In the opposite direction we can have too low a view of the natural world. Here creation is not worshipped but despised. Its value is found solely in its usefulness to humanity rather than being worthy of love and care for its own sake. It is significant and worthy of care only if, and to the extent that, we can use it to make our lives more pleasurable.

This attitude can lead to an uncritical consumerism and expansion, seeing the natural world as a resource to be exploited for human convenience or luxury. 

These distortions have at their heart too high a view of humanity-as separate from, and lord of, creation and too dismissive a view of the created world itself.

The Christian Perspective

All Christian approaches to creation begin from the idea that God made the world and it is good. It is valuable not because it is useful to us but because God made it and he loves it. It is intrinsically good.

Yet the fact that the world is created also means that it is not God. The environment, the natural world, is not the ultimate end or good – it is something that was made by God and it exists to serve him.

God made human beings as part of that creation, formed from within it. In the beautiful picture of Genesis 2, God takes the stuff he has made and uses that stuff to make people. We aren’t separate from nature or the environment; we came from it. 

And yet we are also different from it. Humans are set apart from the rest of Creation. They are, in a sense, higher than all of the other things he has made. He sets them apart as made in his image. He breathes his life into them.

Pausing there, isn’t it amusing how accurate the poetry of Scripture captures who human beings are?  At once the dust of the earth and yet also bearing the print of heaven.

Creation is given to humanity to use. Human life is of greater value than anything else in the world. In that sense it serves them. Yet they are given it to use as stewards, nurturing it, caring for it and bringing it to a sustainable life. We don’t own the created world-it has been entrusted to us and, while we are entitled to use and develop it, we will have to account to its the Owner for how we do so.

  1. The Implications of the Teaching for Ethical Judgments

What does this mean for us as we think about how we shall treat the world?

We should be willing to use the world around us to sustain and develop human life. It is good to do so. Part of the foundations of modern science was the Christian insight that the world is not God and therefore we can experiment on it. There is a hierarchy in creation in which human beings are at the top, with the privileges and responsibilities that implies.

However,  we should always be suspicious of behaviour or policies that become exploitative or unnecessarily exploitative. We should be careful to avoid destructive behaviour, particularly where it is driven not by need but by greed, for the desire for “more” that can never fully be satisfied.

    So how do we apply this as voters, as churches and as individuals?

    As Voters

    When Christians are thinking about creation care and environmental issues as they consider who to vote for, or how to lobby, they should be asking these sorts of questions:

    • How will this party or person’s policies affect the natural world? This is a bigger question than just setting targets etc. It involves a wisdom judgement about what is actually prudent or workable.
    • What is the human cost of these policies? Is it justifiable given that human lives are the highest priority?

    As a Church

    As a church we should be asking how we can care for our environment. That is everything from not being unnecessarily wasteful to considering whether together we can care for the natural world of our village or locality in some way. It is part of good stewardship and it is also a good witness to Jesus.

    As Individuals

    Finally as individuals we can take steps in our own lives to be good stewards. It is tempting to get caught up shouting, posting or campaigning about things that are remote and ultimately need other people to take action for us. But what about nurturing and managing a garden? Or litter picking on your road? Or trying to walk instead of driving?

    These aren’t the exciting or fashionable things to do but they are all acts of faith and obedience, caring for the Creation and carrying out God’s command.

    A Prayer

    Here’s a prayer to get you started this week:

    God our Father and Creator, 

    Your glory is expressed in the light of the stars, the roar of ocean waves, and the majesty of mountains. You have created a home for us in the goodness of the earth and have provided for us through its resources. Give us a right and proper attitude in our relationship with creation. Give us wisdom to build a culture that reverences nature and its resources, that preserves it for the sake of future generations, and that prioritises the good of all in what we make and how we consume. May we reach out to you, our Creator, through a right relationship with your creation. May wonder and discovery lead to innovation that glorifies you, reverence for the dignity of human life, and respect for goodness of the earth that you have made. 

    In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

    1. These ideas are found throughout the Christian Tradition. For these articles, however, I’ve found the materials published by Ascension Press on Catholic Social Teaching (these ideas as they have developed in a Catholic context) very helpful. The prayers are taken directly from their course entitled Connected: Catholic Social Teaching for This Generation. ↩︎