Libby Purves: It's time for a clear policy on euthanasia

The story of Daniel James is almost unbearable. Paralysed in a rugby scrum, he made several suicide attempts and finally persuaded his parents to take him to the Swiss Dignitas clinic to end his life. At 23.

His parents have been questioned by police; what happens next is anybody’s guess. Since its inception Dignitas has left the British legislature mortally confused. Take Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis: she has challenged the Director of Public Prosecutions to state unequivocally whether or not her husband will be charged with assisting suicide (a 14-year sentence) if he takes her there, when she decides the time has come. Ms Purdy robustly says that, if the answer is yes, then she will go alone – and therefore much sooner. If he is in the clear, she can enjoy her remaining time. She deserves that clarity.

Read it all.

Posted in * Christian Life / Church Life, * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, Death / Burial / Funerals, England / UK, Ethics / Moral Theology, Europe, Health & Medicine, Life Ethics, Parish Ministry, Theology

7 comments on “Libby Purves: It's time for a clear policy on euthanasia

  1. Clueless says:

    Trouble is, once it is okay for Ms Purdy, who wants to die, to go to Dignitas, the path will be cleared for every other inconvenient and expensive person to be escorted to Dignitas by those who are burdened with their lives.

    Pneumonia used to be the “old man’s friend”. Me, when the time comes that I am disabled sufficiently that my life is a burden to my family, I plan to get my first tattoo. It will say “Do not Intubate, Do not do CPR and Do Not place Feeding Tube or Resucitate” in large red letters over my chest (with the Sri Lankan lion (symbol of my house) peering around one corner, and a mass of temple blossoms (my personal symbol) decorating the other. And a cross in the background, with a little frog at the bottom (Never mind, don’t ask). I then plan to go to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or some other place where Christianity is persecuted, and be the most incredibly outspoken evangelist in the history of the world. If God wishes me to die, I can manage this without the help of “Dignitas”. If not, I might do a spot of good. You never know.

  2. Larry Morse says:

    I wish I knew the answer – any reasonable answer – to this problem. My sympathy is with those whose suffering has become intolerable and for whom no other help is possible. And yet… and yet… if ever an idea was a set up for abuse, this is it. The pressure is coming from the left to make this an ordinary option, I can feel it. It’s like abortion: Your body is your own and you therefore h ave a right to do with it what you want. i can just smell another Roe v Wade in the wind and it s makes my flesh creep. Larry

  3. hippocamper says:

    A tough issue. We should generally come down on the side of life and oppose euthanasia, but secular law preventing personal choices are just as much a threat.
    (I like your spunk, Clueless.)

  4. Branford says:

    Nothing is preventing someone from killing themselves, it’s the method that’s the problem. I’m assuming that those ill want something that is not painful, so they feel they need a doctor’s prescription or supervision. That is asking another to participate in murder and should be manifestly unfair. Doctors take an oath to “do no harm” but that has already been compromised by abortion so maybe euthanasia isn’t so bad. (/sarc) Of course, the Telegraph has an article on how human tissue can now be harvested from those not mentally competent to agree, and the commodification of humankind continues (read C.S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man).

    . . . Defenders of the [Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill] have repeatedly stressed the importance of gaining consent from anyone whose tissue is taken for the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos.

    It can now be revealed that a Government amendment, agreed after the main parliamentary debates, would allow tissue to be used from people who lack the “mental capacity” to give consent, children whose parents give permission, and anyone who has previously donated samples to hospitals for medical research but can no longer be traced.

    Medical ethics experts and religious leaders are furious that the provisions, which they say ride roughshod over basic human rights, have already been agreed by an all-party committee of 17 MPs charged with scrutinising the bill, without any public debate or discussion in the main chambers of Parliament. . .

    Soon, of course, the option to die will become the obligation to die – especially if national health care is mandated (once again, look at the U.K. or Belgium).

  5. Br. Michael says:

    Indeed. If you are no longer productive why should you be subsidized by or be a burden on the state?

  6. magnolia says:

    yes, but let’s not forget about the person who is having to do the dying; shouldn’t they be allowed to bypass the worst suffering if they wish it? these two cases obviously have/had their minds made up. after watching my birth mother drown when her lungs filled up, i definitely would ask for a more humane way of ending it if it were in my power next time.

  7. Branford says:

    magnolia – I know – it’s the individual cases that are so difficult to decide. I guess, personally, although I know it is not the mind of the church, I would have no problem with each individual deciding what they wanted – to live or die – on their own, but once the power of the state, through legislation, is brought to bear on those decisions, I am very uncomfortable. Soon, as in England, the state starts making the decision for you.