Lord Carey on Euthanasia - It's Compassionate and Christian
Lord George Carey has (again) called on MPs to set time aside to discuss legalising euthanasia. He believes statements used by those to oppose assisted dying - such as “life is sacred” or “thou shalt not kill” - are “too broad as principles to be very relevant to the issue”.
In a submission to MPs, he said it was instead an “act of great generosity, kindness and human love” to help dying people to end their lives.
Lord Carey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury between 1991 and 2002, announced his support for assisted dying in 2014, when a bill was brought forward in the Lords by Labour’s Lord Falconer. The attempt did not succeed.
MPs on the health select committee are looking at the issue of assisted suicide and assisted dying. They are considering whether any protections would be needed against coercion, and what capabilities a person would need to be able to consent to the end of their life.
In his submission to the inquiry, Lord Carey wrote: “It is profoundly Christian to do all we can to ensure nobody suffers against their wishes. Some people believe they will find meaning in their own suffering in their final months and weeks of life. I respect that, but it cannot be justified to expect others to share that belief.”
He added: “Assisted dying is only for those who show a clear minded and persistent resolution to seek it; that it is within the capabilities of medical science to end intolerable suffering peacefully and that it is an act of great generosity, kindness and human love to help those when it is the will of the only person that matters – the sufferer himself.
“Laws, and the processes adopted for developing them, send powerful social messages.
“I sincerely hope that the committee will send the message that we live in a compassionate society that has the courage to confront complexity, not one that bases its rules on fear or misunderstanding.”
He added: “In relation to assisted dying, the government must gather and review evidence from a variety of sources, including from individuals directly impacted by the law, and then devote time for a proper debate that facilitates law change.”
Lord Carey said assisted dying was a choice between “two types of dying” - hastening death for those who are going to die anyway, but in great pain.
“Those who have a conscientious objection do not need to participate,” he said. “The strange situation that we have whereby a person has the right to refuse life sustaining treatment, but where a dying person is not allowed to be prescribed life-ending medication that would allow them to die in peace must be reconsidered in a careful and conscientious way.”
Eight years ago, at the time of Lord Falconer's bill, Carey wrote: "The fact is that I have changed my mind. The old philosophical certainties have collapsed in the face of the reality of needless suffering ... Had I been putting doctrine before compassion, dogma before human dignity?
"I began to reconsider how to interpret Christian theology on the subject. As I did so, I grew less and less certain of my opposition to the right to die."
Carey wrote about how he challenged his own thinking as he re-read the Scriptures. He wrote: "One of the key themes of the gospels is love for our fellow human beings ... Today we face a terrible paradox. In strictly observing accepted teaching about the sanctity of life, the church could actually be sanctioning anguish and pain – the very opposite of the Christian message."
Carey added that advances in modern medicine has been a crucial factor in his thinking. "While drugs might be able to hasten the end more quickly and painlessly, sophisticated medical science also offers people the chance to be kept alive far beyond anything that would have been possible only a few years ago. Yet our laws have not caught up with the science.
"Until recently, I would have fiercely opposed Lord Falconer's bill, following the traditional line of the Christian church. I would have used the time-honoured argument that we should be devoting ourselves to care, not killing.
"I would have paraded all the usual concerns about the risks of 'slippery slopes' and 'state-sponsored euthanasia'. But those arguments which persuaded me in the past seem to lack power and authority when confronted with the experiences of those approaching a painful death.
"It fails to address the fundamental question as to why we should force terminally ill patients to an unbearable point. It is the magnitude of suffering that has been preying on my mind as the discussion over the right to die has intensified."
Is there anything people like this WON'T justify on yhe grounds of "compassion"?
ReplyDeleteIt's known as "moral consequentialism" or "moral proportionalism" and has been condemned by the Church.
DeleteCarey is welcome to his opinion, and I don't think it indicates that he is a bad person. And many nurses already administer an "end of life care" cocktail of drugs (ideally when the patient is actually dying anyway).
ReplyDeleteBut "The old philosophical certainties have collapsed in the face of the reality of needless suffering...." Here we seem to have the problem (again) that "philosophical certainties" are somehow considered to be contingent on events.
Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope St John Paul II, 1995....PART 1
ReplyDeleteThis view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus soci- ety becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people's analogous interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.
Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope St John Paul II, 1995. PART 11
ReplyDeleteT.his is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations:
Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope St John Paul II, 1995...PART 111
ReplyDelete"How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).
"And from your face I shall be hidden" (Gen 4:14): the eclipse of the sense of God and of man
21. In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the "culture of life" and the "culture of death", we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom mentioned above. We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism, which, with its ubiquitous tentacles, succeeds at times in putting Christian communities themselves to the test. Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God's living and saving presence....Cressida
Some random thoughts, otherwise I'll end up writing a book.
ReplyDeleteIt is profoundly Christian to do all we can to ensure nobody suffers against their wishes.
Just drown everyone in the font. Then nobody will ever have to suffer.
Some people believe they will find meaning in their own suffering in their final months and weeks of life. I respect that, but it cannot be justified to expect others to share that belief.
Those 'some people' used to be called Christians. There used to be an idea that one can find redemption in suffering. Should the Father have struck Christ dead in the garden to avoid him having to suffer? Should Christ have struck St. Peter down lest 'another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish'? Or St. Paul, who left a trail of his own blood around the Mediterranean.
it is the will of the only person that matters – the sufferer himself.
Here is the fall of western civilisation encapsulated in (almost) one sentence.
The strange situation that we have whereby a person has the right to refuse life sustaining treatment, but where a dying person is not allowed to be prescribed life-ending medication that would allow them to die in peace.
This I almost agree with, except that the answer to the last half should be better palliative care and we need to have a conversation about the over treatment of terminal illnesses.
I would have paraded all the usual concerns about the risks of 'slippery slopes' and 'state-sponsored euthanasia'. But those arguments which persuaded me in the past seem to lack power and authority when confronted with the experiences of those approaching a painful death.
The argumentum ad passiones fallacy. Why not base all of our policies on our feelings?
Not that any of this matters. They'll just keep pushing it until it comes to pass, that much is clear. I'm utterly unsurprised to see the CofE throwing its weight behind another life denying ideology.
Euthenasia already happens in the UK. Not everywhere and not consistently. My mother in law , and I know I've said this before, was euthanised by a Doctor with her full agreement. Her last words were "what choice do I have"? Of course it was all hidden by euphemisms. No one actually used the word 'euthenasia'.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of Carey's comment is he is being disingenuous. He's linking it to physical suffering when we all know that it won't be limited to them.
Those with dementia will be allowed to, those who are dying without physical pain will be allowed to, those who have a terminal disease, who aren't yest suffering will be allowed to
Carey is being dishonest.
But there is an issue here. There are people who die in agony, if you give them a way out, thereby cutting their life by 48hrs, does it matter?
And isn't it at least honest and fair? Instead of depending on a post code lottery for access, we have a clear set of criteria and rules.
Giving back dignity and removing the fear of unbearable pain?
I agree. This conversation is pointless when nobody's honest about what's currently happening in the first place. I think:
Delete1. We need to be consistent about what we do when we get to the stage at which the application of effective pain relief will hasten death. When medical pain relief brings forward death in a dying person (whose life is probably being medically lengthened anyway), this doesn't seem to me to be euthanasia. I think that many people would benefit from the assurance that nobody will withhold pain relief from you when you're dying in case it kills you.
2. What is 'suffering'? Abortion is legally permitted where it poses a threat to the mother's health, and 'threat to health' has been interpreted so widely that most abortions are carried out under this category - the 'damage' to a mother's mental health from the stress and anxiety of having an unwanted child, for example. There's no reason to suspect that wouldn't be the case here - even receiving a diagnosis of something can cause mental suffering.
3. This isn't a power I'd wish to see placed in the hands of the state, who are currently barely able to collect my bins on the right day. Carey is being intellectually dishonest if he thinks all those 'slippery slope' objections melt away because 'compassion'. The compassion one feels for an individual's suffering has to be balanced against protecting the vulnerable.
(It's ironic that compassion literally means 'to suffer alongside another', and here's an Archbishop who wants to snuff people out before they get to that stage).
4. I suspect that this will disproportionately affect poor and disadvantaged groups, who don't have access to expensive private health care (or good state health care) and have higher incidents of certain diseases that cause longterm suffering.
Lain a couple of points.ref your point 4. Yes you're right, I will confess I hadn't thought of that
DeleteRegards using pain relief knowing it will also kill. I think this is just sophistry. Let's call it what it is, it's euthenasia. It maybe forced euthenasia ie the doctor doesn't have a real alternative, but it's still euthenasia.
And it is also prolonging suffering. I've said before my mum suffered pain because they would only up the pain relief when suffering was visible. She was in a coma. She was dying, she had only a couple of days left, she was suffering, what was the point?
But the Doctors were to frightened to administer sufficient pain killer in case they were charged with euthenasia.
Which is why I believe we live in a postcode lottery
I see your point, if we understand euthanasia in this context as the ending of a life due to a medical intervention, but I think there's a difference. It might seem like hair splitting, but I think they're hairs worth splitting.
DeleteMedical pain relief is targeting at reducing the patient's pain at the end of their life; even though the doctor knows that the dosage may be fatal, they don't intend to kill the patient - i.e., they don't administer that dose until there's no other option. I appreciate that this is an extremely fine line, and we're usually not talking about significantly shortening the patient's life. What Carey is championing, however, is the kind that ends with Dignitas clinics and people being given drugs specifically to cause death.
One makes the difference between, say, my dying of a terminal illness this afternoon or tomorrow morning. The other, between my dying tonight or in six months' or a year's time.
I think we have to be careful about including everything in the same category, or the person dying in agony in their last hours becomes the justification for allowing the young paraplegic to end his life (as happened with abortion).
I agree with you about comas.
@Prof,
DeleteYes, that's very very true, and those with Down's Sydrome, who aren't suffering, will also "be allowed to", and in fact aleady are.
I'm not sure that Carey is being so much dishonest as unthinking and very badly informed.
雲水,
Delete"It is profoundly Christian to do all we can to ensure nobody suffers against their wishes..... Just drown everyone in the font. Then nobody will ever have to suffer.
I think you nailed that!
@lain I agree in the main, which is why I was critical of Carey in my first post, as you are right, he is being disengenuous, and what he proposes does end in Dignitas. All I would add is there is a logic in reviewing what is going on in the late stages and being more honest about it. And more consistent.
DeletePS I believe that doctors are to sanguine about suffering experienced in coma's. Especially early on in the coma.
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Carey is getting on in years. He will be 88 in a few months’ time. Could he perhaps be dropping a heavy hint that he himself is now in the market for a dose of “Christian compassion”?
ReplyDelete@Ray,
DeleteAnd yet Archbishop Carey appears to be perfectly fit and able to do the deed himself - as my (atheist) father did when he found his cancer had become terminal - and so he doesn't really need to talk about euthanasia, which involves other people (and society) in the morally (and politically) dubious process.
I'm sorry to hear about your father, may God grant him rest.
DeleteI don't like the language of privilege, but I think it's relevant here. Lord Carey is privileged to be healthy and wealthy enough to have full autonomy over himself. He will never want for good healthcare.
In contrast, getting a GP appointment where I am is like hunting a unicorn and if you need to go the hospital, forget it. Where my father minsters now, the average age of the people he takes funerals for is mid 80s plus and they've mainly died of diseases of old age. When he worked in one of what the Church of England calls 'areas of urban deprivation', the average age was around 56, largely from chronic diseases associated with unhealthy lifestyles, and manual or factory work, and there were many more sick with them too.
Carey is in the former group, making decisions about the lives of the latter. If they feel they must get involved in politics, I'd rather see our church leaders pushing for better healthcare reforms and highlighting the scandalous inequality in existing provisions - so we can keep people alive for longer rather than working out ways to have them put down sooner. I know this is a crazy idea.
Top health care system for everyone is the obvious answer....also better living conditions accomodation and quality food incl. However all of this is far too expensive and it is more economical to rid society of the aged (they don't pay tax and society saves on benefits and pensions) It is socially unacceptable to line them up and shoot them or send them out to sea on ice floes, so euthanasia is a better way of achieving this....Also if you deny them decent palliative care most would choose death rather than suffer in a Dickensian third rate care home... Problem solved..if you wish to enjoy a humane old age ensure you can pay for it. Although having said that greedy relatives may become impatient if the old person is not dying soon enough and the cost of their very expensive care is eating into the inheritance....so I'm certain that aspect will lead to problems as well. Elder abuse is already alarmingly high mainly through children accessing the parent's finances without consent which is very easy to do when one is in a position of trust. Yes I know it is all too awful but sadly it is real.
DeleteCressida
雲水,
DeleteThank you for your concern about my late father. He was a good man in many ways, but said that although he would have liked to have believed in God he simply couldn't "because of how miserable the world is". So I don't honestly know if God will grant him rest, but hear's to praying for that.
You surely know vastly more about the CofE than I do, but isn't Carey from quite a humble East End background? One would hope that he might know something about the life of the average man (though wealth and power can certainly change a person). I'm hestitant to criticize his emotional response to extreme end-of-life pain if he has witnessed a good deal of that himself, but he's also where he is to provide spiritual and philosophical guidence. At moments like these I like to draw people's attention to the example of the blessed Chiara Luce Badano!
Regarding healthcare, the first thing that church leaders, and other leaders, might like to look at is what went wrong over the last three years. That's another 'crazy idea'.
The Catholic Herald, I see, is still faithfully using the standard English term “sex change surgery”. What about the rest of Fleet Street? How widespread is the resistance to the Newspeak “gender reassignment procedure”?
ReplyDeletehttps://catholicherald.co.uk/nebraska-bans-abortion-at-12-weeks-and-sex-change-surgery-for-minors/
Both terms are factually inaccurate.
DeleteTrue.
DeleteAccording to the Catholic Church, one cannot change one's sex or gender. When "sex change" is used it is generally with scare quotes around it.
You wouldn't think that would be something that the Church would need to clarify, but here we are.
Delete