Three arguments for legalising euthanasia
Christians need to continue to fight against the legalisation of medically assisted suicide whilst at the same time preparing for its arrival
Dear friends,
After a few years of dormancy, the campaign to legalise assisted suicide in the UK is rapidly gathering pace. Various bills are being proposed and debated and it is a regular topic of discussion in the media. In today’s newsletter, we explore three recent arguments (from three very different sources) for euthanasia in Britain and think through how Christians should be responding.
I’ve also got links to my latest podcasts (on everything from ADHD and obesity to psychedelic drugs and the gender gap in church), plus what I’ve been reading recently and some other new resources on my website.
Three arguments for legalising medically assisted suicide
The legalisation of medically assisted suicide is rising up the political agenda in the UK.
The Isle of Man parliament has already voted to introduce both assisted suicide and euthanasia for those with a terminal illness. Last month Jersey published proposals for providing ‘assisted dying’ for those with either terminal illness or unbearable suffering. And on 27 March a private members Bill was introduced into the Scottish Parliament to allow assisted suicide for those who have ‘an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.’
The shape of the debate to come is graphically outlined in three articles published in the last 3 weeks. First, the Economist magazine on 13 April in a front-page piece Assisted Dying celebrated an unstoppable wave of liberalisation in public attitudes over the last 40 years. Over this period approval of homosexuality has risen from 12% to 66%. At the same time the public acceptance of divorce has risen from 18% to 64%. “Where the public has led, politicians have followed”. And so we come to the triumphant conclusion, “Britain’s next great social reform is approaching.”
The tone is breezy and up-beat. There is no evidence of a slippery slope in other countries that have passed legislation. (That the Economist which prides itself on factual accuracy can express such a blatant untruth beggars belief.) True, the number of people seeking an “assisted death” is continuing to rise, but this is evidence of the public’s desire to make use of a new freedom, not cause for concern. The main problem with the proposed legislation is that it is too restrictive, by confining suicide to the terminally ill. Many people suffer terribly who do not have a terminal illness. There’s no reason to be concerned about pressures on vulnerable people. After all most people with disabilities in Canada support the existing law. In brief, the Economist has given due notice that even if the proposed legislation were to be passed into law, the fight will not be over. Further liberalisation is inevitable. The people demand it.
Second, and most chilling, was Matthew Parris in the Times - an article published with infinite irony on Good Friday. He has no patience with supporting arguments based on compassion for those suffering at the end of life. Instead he chooses to confront what he recognises is the strongest argument against legalisation of assisted dying. That it will lead to growing social and cultural pressure on the terminally ill “….to hasten their own deaths so as “not to be a burden” on others or themselves. I believe this will indeed come to pass. And I would welcome it….”
We simply cannot afford the increasing number of elderly people in our society, especially those with “extended retirements, often characterised by immobility, ill-health and dementia: and typically wildly expensive, cornering resources to fund our health and social care sectors”. Ultimately the self-preservation of society is at stake, and that means there must be a “balance between input and output”.
Matthew Parris claims there is a growing cultural recognition that “we simply cannot afford extreme senescence or desperate infirmity for as many such individuals as our society is producing.” To protect its future, a healthy society must adapt its norms, its cultural taboos and its moral codes. “’Your time is up’ will never be an order, but — yes, the objectors are right — may one day be the kind of unspoken hint that everybody understands. And that’s a good thing.”
And so to the third and most poignant contribution, that from philosophy professor and feminist activist Kathleen Stock. Writing in Unherd she has genuine concerns about the breezy tone of the pro-euthanasia activists. “At times, it can sound as if one is being offered a particularly relaxing spa treatment. With a pleasing ring of supportiveness, you are now being “assisted” in achieving something, rather than being killed by a doctor or killing yourself.” And she notes with concern the activists’ tendency to place complete trust in the future life and death judgements of doctors and judges, even in the face of blatant legal and medical failures of the recent past.
Yet Stock concludes that it is inevitable that legislation will succeed across the whole of the UK sooner or later. Her piece is entitled “The assisted-dying lobby has already won. Emotive arguments rule our secular age.” She notes the claims of some Christian commentators, that Matthew Parris’s enthusiasm for the social utility of assisted dying has starkly exemplified how the value of individual human life can become negotiable in a post-God world. Once we have abandoned God it is inevitable that we will move instead to prioritise the good of the collective in utilitarian fashion.
However she argues that society’s trajectory away from God and towards legalised euthanasia is more subtle than this. It is not that growing secularism causes society to prioritize the collective over the individual. Instead the loss of a general belief in the divine leads to a form of moral and intellectual paralysis. “Without prior commitment to some deeply felt theological or philosophical principle about the intrinsic value of human life, all that is left for most of us are vague intuitions and orphaned remnants of moral reasoning inherited from a formerly Christian outlook. And these are no match against the powerful lure of a vision of preventing personal physical suffering in future, or the suffering of loved ones, via the offering of a serene and painless death.”
Most people, including Stock, have intuitions that there must be something wrong with doctors killing off the old and the sick, but what exactly is the moral difficulty with painlessly ending the lives of those who say they want to die? “Lacking a convincing reference to God or some other organising value system, many will struggle to articulate the problem.”
Stocks recognises that euthanasia legislation may well cause more harm than good; guilt-tripping those who feel like burdens into premature endings, tempting the already depressed towards easy oblivion, and so on. “But to make this case convincingly would require a positive belief in something; and for many of us, real ardour for the principle of utility is just as hard to conjure up as a sincere belief in a Christian God.”
Of the three pieces, perhaps it is not surprising that it is Kathleen Stock, the professional philosopher, who provides the most sophisticated and thoughtful analysis. For centuries Western European societies have lived with an unspoken but deeply felt commitment to respecting and protecting the intrinsic value and significance of every human life. As Cicely Saunders once put it, “You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life.” Of course it is these very convictions which underpin and buttress the panoply of human rights legislation, so beloved by liberals.
But as a genuine belief in the God of Christianity fades, it becomes harder to maintain a positive and wholehearted commitment to the inviolability of human life. Moral reasoning, and an unshakeable commitment to ethical principles becomes increasingly problematic. The power of moral emotivism, the warm appeal of principle-free ‘compassion’ (“we must prevent suffering at all costs, however we do it”), and the attractions of limitless autonomy (“Whose life is it anyway?”) threaten to overwhelm increasingly wobbly moral foundations.
So how should those of us who continue to believe in the inviolability of human life respond? Well I, for one, am in favour of what palliative care specialists call “twin-track planning” at the end of life. You hope for the best, whilst you prepare for the worst. Yes, we should continue to make the arguments against this legalisation. We make the most of the many opportunities that our democracy gives us to influence and persuade others. But it is surely time for those of us based in the UK to start preparing seriously for a post-euthanasia future.
The threat is that once the law is passed, in our centralised and bureaucratic NHS public health planners will perceive a pressing duty to ensure that assisted suicide becomes freely available to every ‘terminally ill’ patient across the country. In every hospital and every GP practice, procedures and care-plans must be established. After all we must avoid ‘a post-code lottery’. Once assisted suicide becomes a recognised ‘treatment option’ it must be made available universally. Everyone has the right to access legally approved medical ‘services’.
So what steps can we take to ensure that, despite the enthusiasm of activists and planners, there are euthanasia-free zones in the UK, places of safety in which both health care professionals and patients are protected from the coming wave of ‘compassionate’ and efficient medical killing? Would it be possible to create places of safety within existing NHS structures? Or will it be necessary to consider creating independent euthanasia-free health services and facilities.
It is not as though there is overwhelming enthusiasm for medical killing amongst UK doctors. In March 2020 a poll at the Royal College of Physicians found that 43.4% of UK fellows and members were opposed to a change in the law. In 2021 at the BMA annual representatives meeting 48% were opposed. This is much more than an out-of-touch and conservative profession opposed to change. Many UK doctors, including hundreds known to me, have a principled as well as visceral opposition to medical killing. So even if euthanasia legislation is passed in the UK, a very substantial group of doctors will be opposed to this practice. Will it be possible to translate this extensive opposition into the creation of places of safety for doctors and patients?
The direction of travel is unmistakable. Now is the time to start twin-track planning.
~
I recently published a piece in The Spectator arguing that the legalisation of euthanasia as envisaged in the Scottish bill places an unacceptable responsibility on doctors - sworn to protect life - to become state-sponsored executioners.
Euthanasia is too cruel to doctors: It is physicians who will have to be at the heart of the legally sanctioned killing process - and that is not what we are here for
My latest podcast
Q&A: Did ending Roe v Wade actually save unborn children’s lives?
Our first topic in this Q&A episode is a recent study which found that in 2023, the first full calendar year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and the constitutional right to an abortion, total abortions actually increased. Despite 21 states enacting full or partial abortion bans, more women not fewer are ending their pregnancies. How can this have happened, and what might it tell the pro-life movement about its tactics and priorities if it seeks to make abortion not simply unlawful, but unthinkable?
Next we respond to a listener who is wondering if we might have got food culture a bit wrong in a church setting? Hospitality and sharing meals together is a huge part of Christianity, but is it possible to do so while making fresh, nutritious food from scratch? Should Christians be wary of ultra-processed food? Have we accidentally baptised our existing middle-class preferences for organic produce and home-made recipes, and pretended it is somehow more virtuous or moral?
Some other recent episodes you may enjoy:
ADHD, over-diagnosis and should Christians try to enhance our brains with stimulants?
New obesity drugs, the morality of food, and has neuroscience killed off free will?
What I’ve been reading
Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation - a compelling and very well-argued case that a combination of overprotection in the real world and underprotection in the online world has had catastrophic consequences for a generation of children.
Justin Brierley, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God - a valuable analysis of the decline of New Atheism and growing interest in Christianity amongst some leading secular thinkers.
Alasdair MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry - this is the third time I have been working through this dense and wide-ranging book. In my view it is one of MacIntyre's most illuminating works on moral philosophy but sadly has been largely ignored. The three rival versions are Enlightenment rationalism (which still rules supreme in academic moral philosophy, although fatally flawed and impotent), Nietzsche/Foucault (the triumph of the powerful, currently being played out not only in Ukraine but also in 'woke' universities and the liberal left), and Aristotle/Aquinas (the tradition of moral enquiry based on a continual quest for the Good and the Excellent). If you want to better understand the mess that is modern moral philosophy this is the book I would recommend.
Rowan Williams, Passions of the Soul - profound, rich, refreshing and inspiring meditations on the Beatitudes and the Eastern tradition of monastic prayer. A short book for slow and meditative reading.
And, here are some other Substack newsletters I have been enjoying recently…
The Convivial Society - L.M. Sacasas - profound reflections on technology and culture
Exponential View - Azeem Azhar - an authoritative and accessible weekly analysis of AI developments
Ground Truths - Eric Topol - an excellent, authoritative and highly informative update on biomedical developments.
Maiden Mother Matriarch - Louise Perry - a podcast about sexual politics, informative and perceptive
Pilgrims in the Machine - Mind and Spirit in the shadow of technology
The Free Press - independent investigative journalism
The Critical Friend - Tim Wyatt - a weekly newsletter about the church. I think it's great, but then I am biased...
The latest on my website
I am AI
With computers becoming more like humans, we all need to think harder about who we can trust and what our identity is grounded inForget rapturous romance, friendship is the love that feeds the relationally malnourished
Look beyond the commercialised celebration of Valentine’s Day
Find many more articles, videos, talks and books to stimulate your own thinking at: