Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Freethinker

Home
Nonreligious
Op-ed: A Carefully Phrased Letter

Op-ed: A Carefully Phrased Letter

Last updated on: November 12, 2021 at 4:56 pm by Professor John Radford

Op-ed: A Carefully Phrased Letter 2021-11-12T16:56:57+02:00 Professor John Radford

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

IN May 2021 Baroness Meacher tabled a Private Member’s Bill, the Assisted Dying Bill, before the House of Lords. The purport of the Bill was to legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill people with less than six months to live.

Images via Facebook & YouTube

Before the Second Reading of the Bill, passing which would allow it to go forward, a letter was addressed to peers, jointly from the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, left, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, centre, who is President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, and the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mervis.

The purpose was to persuade peers to vote against the Bill. The letter was, it seems to me, carefully phrased with a view to that purpose. I propose to discuss it in some detail. Although it is hardly necessary I want to make it clear that I in no way doubt the sincerity of the writers.

The letter is fairly short and I will give it sentence by sentence, followed by my comments.

As leaders of faith communities, we wish to express our profound disquiet at the provisions of the ‘Assisted Dying’ Bill currently in the House of Lords.

“Faith” and “communities” are both much more acceptable than “religions” or “churches”; “leaders” suggests something more voluntary than “heads” or official titles. Of course their respective posts give them no special right to speak on this issue.

We acknowledge that Baroness Meacher is seeking the alleviation of suffering. This motivation we share wholeheartedly, but we disagree on the means advanced to address this very real concern.

Always a good move: your opponent means well, but (sadly) is going about it the wrong way. Thus you appear friendly and tolerant but also superior (acknowledge).

In particular, we are conscious of the risks and dangers entailed in the provisions of the Bill, and the ‘real-life’ practical inadequacies of the proposed safeguards.

What risks and dangers? Which safeguards, and why are they inadequate? What are “real-life” inadequacies? It might be said that this is only a short letter, but giving no actual examples at all avoids having to demonstrate the alleged shortcomings.

By the faiths we profess, we hold every human life to be a precious gift of the Creator, to be upheld and protected.

This is a statement about the signatories and nothing more; what they happen to believe has no bearing whatever on the Bill. (If it is intended to be an argument, one might point out that many people do not believe in any “Creator” ; and that the faiths referred to have not been reluctant over many centuries to sanction, or engage in, killing large numbers of fellow human beings.)

All people of faith, and those of none, can share our concern that the common good is not served by policies or actions that would place very many vulnerable people in more vulnerable positions.

No doubt they can share such concern, but the implication seems to be that they should do so. But no policies or actions are specified, nor who these very vulnerable people are, nor why they would be more vulnerable; in fact no evidence at all is offered.

We appeal to people of whatever faith or belief to join us through our common bond of humanity in caring for the most vulnerable people within our society. In contrast to the proposals in this Bill, we continue to call for measures to make high-quality palliative care available to all at the end of their lives.

This is an obvious false dichotomy, and really little short of cheating. There is no suggestion in the Bill that high-quality palliative care should not be available to all.

We believe that the aim of a compassionate society should be assisted living rather than an acceptance of assisted suicide.

This simply repeats the false dichotomy. There is no reason whatever why a compassionate society cannot have both aims.

Image courtesy Campaign for Dignity in Dying

It is notable that this letter does not even try to deal with the actual aim of the Bill, does not indeed even mention it specifically. The fact is that there are individuals, at least some of whose cases have become widely known, whose condition is such that despite every possible care, they face a period of intense suffering before they die.

They have decided that they would wish to end their lives sooner rather than later, at a time and under conditions of their own choosing. In many cases their condition is such that they cannot do this without assistance; but at present this is illegal.

The aim of the Bill is to remove this restriction. Those who seek to retain it are wilfully condemning other human beings to unnecessary suffering, which is inevitably shared by their loved ones who have to watch it without being to help.

It is hard to avoid a suspicion that what the letter’s signatories really dislike is the right of individuals to choose for themselves.

I don’t know how many peers read the letter, but in fact the Bill passed the Second Reading stage and will proceed to the Committee stage. However it is unlikely to make any further progress without Government support. The chances of this are small as the Government typically favours religious views.

• John Radford is Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of East London. This year he marked two anniversaries: his 90th birthday on March 23, and, on August 1, 60 years as a psychologist. On October 20, he delivered a lecture, “Liberal Science”, part of a series of annual public lectures at the UEL School of Psychology, of which he is the founding head.

Previous Post

November 11, 2021

Atlanta Christian's bite was worse than her bark

Next Post

November 12, 2021 Pope lavishes praise on cardinal who remained silent over abuse

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Archive My Atheism News Opinion Reviews Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 March 2007 April 2006 February 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Here I am, send me!"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Isaiah Peter Elijah Moses

Books by This Author Books by The Freethinker

See All Titles »