Presidential address by the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt
Rev James Jones
to the Diocesan Synod of the Diocese of Liverpool
on the Assisted Dying Bill.
17 June 2006
I hope Synod will forgive me if I again devote this Presidential Address to the Assisted Dying Bill. Between this and the last Synod Lord Joffe’s Bill came to the House of Lords and was defeated by 148 to 100 with over half the Lords spirituals turning out to vote against. In so doing over-spilling the Bishops’ benches and causing them to be re-coined as “the terraces of Bishops”!
Although the Bill was voted down by a substantial majority it was not decisively defeated and its protagonists left the chamber defiantly declaring that they will bring it back. That’s why I am returning to the subject for we need to be vigilant as determined forces pledge themselves to transform the moral terrain of this country. This address gives me the opportunity to discharge the teaching office of the Bishop and also to reflect on the debate.
There were 90 speeches in the debate lasting over 7 hours. With the exception of a brief break I was in the chamber for seven hours and heard the vast majority of speeches, many of them on all sides of the argument excellent. No side monopolised compassion. Indeed, it is on the grounds of compassion that all sides stand.
The proponents of Assisted Dying seem to have public opinion flowing in their direction. Clearly faced with a question about how you want to die most of us would want to die well, free from pain and in control of our own destiny. It is little wonder that when presented with that option the majority instantly vote for it without consideration of the other issues that come to the surface on further and deeper reflection. But there’s another opinion poll about dying well that needs also to be heard. It is a much more substantial measurement of public attitudes because the survey has been sustained over the last quarter of a century. It’s a vote that’s cast not on a whim over the telephone nor by a cross on a ballot form it’s a vote cast in sterling by literally the millions upon millions of pounds that are given year on year to the hospice movement. This remarkable phenomenon has been sustained by popular support without any substantial investment by either the Government or the NHS.
Every pound given is a vote for dying well. It is a vote for dying with dignity, free from pain and with the patient and their loved ones in control of their destiny. This is the public turning their back on assisted suicide and demanding that society should give special care to those in the closing moment of life. So much of the money donated to the hospice movement comes to hospices locally and after family and friends have experienced hospice care for a dying loved one. They give out of appreciation and out of recognition that this is the best way to assist ourselves as we approach the end of our life. One of the good outcomes of this debate is that it has magnified the focus on palliative care in this country and on the remarkable achievements and advances of the hospice movement. And in the debate we learned that 94% of Palliative Care Consultants who are “the ones who live with those who are dying” and 71% of doctors oppose the Assisted Dying Bill even in its modified form.
There were some lighter moments in this emotionally charged debate with one peer asking why it was that humanists who don’t believe in life after death were proposing a Bill to end a person’s life prematurely while Christians who believe in eternity were opposing it and delaying a person’s admission to the afterlife. But that humorous and not altogether rhetorical question misses an important theological point. The Resurrection of the Body – so central to Christian theology – signifies that God has a purpose for the body as well as the soul both through and beyond death. What happens to us in our bodies is as of equal importance to God as what happens to our souls.
The thrust of the Bill’s exponents centred most dramatically on a series of questions. “Were we content for people to be driven to Switzerland to find a compassionate response to end a terminal illness?” “Is it not a form of arrogance to deny someone their right to end their life as they chose?” “How do we speak compassionately to those who say they do not want palliative care and would prefer assisted dying?” These were powerful questions eloquently posed. I dealt with some of the arguments in my previous Synod Address.
The most cogent response that I heard in the debate came from a previous Secretary to the Cabinet. With years of experience drafting legislation and observing its abuse Lord Wilson was of the view that as soon as the law permits the killing of human beings there will be cases of abuse. Once it is on the statute book that it is in certain circumstances legal to kill another person a certain threshold in society will be crossed. Some will find loopholes and exploit them, some will wilfully abuse the act and others will push that now this Rubicon has been crossed there should be other cases covered by the law. The “chilling effect” as it is known raises the prospect of a new world that is far from brave and one where the weak and vulnerable will feel exposed.
And yet for all the argumentation most of us are faced with the harsh reality of being with and even nursing those whose last days feel like weeks and months as they tarry long before the final breath. I have to confess in my pastoral ministry as a curate and vicar being with the dying and praying to God that death would come sooner rather than later.
I confess that when my own mother was in the last uncomfortable months of her life I longed and prayed that death might spare her soon of her mental suffering. And therefore I have to ask what is the difference between praying for a speedy end to a poor quality of life and actually hastening that end if it can be done painlessly, compassionately and with the full and knowing consent of the one that is dying?
And, if that was my heartfelt longing how can I in all honesty oppose those who are wanting to bring in such a Bill to assist dying on the grounds of compassion?
I do not remember who said it but this was quoted in the debate “Laws are not for particular cases but for all mankind”. In other words, we have to legislate not just for individual cases but for the common good. We have to create a culture which provides the most protection for the least powerful and the least intimidation for the most vulnerable. These are the hallmarks of a civilised and caring society. The laws, the mores, the rituals and the symbols which we rehearse amongst ourselves should have regard to the truth that we are as society not just a gathering of individuals but a people who are in relationship with one another. Indeed, the particular Christian revelation of the divine nature is that God is three persons in one. At the centre of all is a relationship. That is the ultimate reality. Being created in the image of God means that we are made in and for relationship. Being in relationship is the ultimate human experience. Being autonomous, individualistic and selfish is less than what God made us to be. This insight is important especially for Christians as they weigh the arguments of those who say that all ethical decisions are in the end a matter of personal autonomy and choice. An individual may well make moral judgements but the consequences are invariably relational. And no less so than in the case of assisted dying.
It is the impact of assisted suicide on a range of relationships that helps us see that this can never simply be a matter of individual autonomy and choice. Once this is admitted into our society it will change all manner of relationships. The relationship between the patient and the doctor will change: no longer will the doctor be seen always as a minister of healing, he will now also be known as a dealer in dying.
The relationship between the patient and family will change; no longer will relatives be seen as supporters and heirs powerless to graduate sooner from the former to the latter, they will now become beneficiaries of a hastened death. The relationship between the patient and the community will change. No longer will the patient relax in their inalienable right to be cared for as long as they have breath, now they will feel the burden of being a burden knowing that they and they alone can relieve his community of its duty to care and so spare society of the economic cost and their family the emotional cost of caring for them. The relationship between the patient and their inner-self will change: with the relationships with doctor, family and society having changed fundamentally the patient will be thrown back on themselves wondering who it is they can trust in this world of re-ordered relationships.
In this place the vulnerable will feel a new depth of vulnerability as the trusted cradle of relationship is rocked and loses its stability. This will indeed make the valley of death more shadowy. The figures that used to be so trustworthy – the doctor, the family, the community – will no longer be so reassuring. Either real or imaginary doubts will cloud the mind of the tired dying as they try to judge the advice of those close to them. It is the cumulative effect of all these changed relationships against which we must compare the individual case. Change the law and we change the relationships and the culture of our society.
This is a different world, my friends. It does not strike me as a more godly world. It is a world of lonely and frightened autonomy especially for the terminally ill and the tired dying bereft of those close and trusted relationships that are beyond imputing doubtful motives. It is not a world away from where we are now. Indeed, it is only 48 votes away.