By Ethan Harvey
A subject that has long been taboo in Britain, euthanasia, has re-emerged at the forefront of political discussion; a term frequently mollified with the misleading euphemism ‘assisted dying’ – the more sincere appellation being ‘assisted suicide’. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater revived the controversial issue in Parliament at the start of the month after she proposed a private member bill designed to allow the terminally ill to ‘shorten pain and suffering’ by ‘ending their lives early.’ However, the divisive issue has invoked an ontological debate about whether the historic moral outlook that life is sacrosanct and too valuable to end voluntarily is anachronistic. This article will examine how said policy undermines Christianity and the sanctity of life and is based on a subjective misnomer about the definition of ‘terminally ill,’ potentially creating a slippery slope and painting a bleak, morally bankrupt dystopic future for Britain where society has the power to determine life or death.
Firstly, creating the conditions in which the act of killing another human being becomes legitimised undermines the sanctity of life. Christianity, which historically underpins British societal norms, manners, and moral foundations, emphasises that every life is sacred. Therefore, everyone has a right to a protected and valued life. By voluntarily taking the life of another human being, with consent or without, one trespasses God’s will to determine life and death and ridicules man’s dignity and the value of life. Even if you are agnostic, there are moral conundrums which transpire once one enters the arbitrary realms of killing human beings, as the threshold that establishes the point from which we can exercise such a heinous act is capricious.
Doctors and judges are unfairly handed the considerable burden of responsibility of ending the life of another human being. And whilst you may argue that this is a common occurrence in hospitals now, it is only when the palliative care route is off the table. Biblically speaking, the wicked policy would reduce the value of human life to that of an animal. It is akin to discarding an item that no longer has any purpose. This analogy stimulates connotations with eugenics. We only need to take a glimpse at our history books to realise that such a policy that destroys the lives of those who can no longer serve a purpose is analogous to the operations of despotic regimes. Usually, these malign regimes suggest something inherently wrong with people existing in suboptimal conditions, which validates their removal from society. Interestingly, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Dignity in Dying, has a background in the history of eugenics.
The policy is further problematised by how Leadbetter subjectively frames the bill, with emotive language designed to dubiously placate murder using phrases such as ‘ending the suffering.’ It is based on a disturbing precept that it is cruel not to end the life of someone who is ‘terminally ill.’ But anyone with a medical brain knows that the term ‘terminally ill,’ defined arbitrarily as patients with six months left to live, is a misnomer. This is because the imperfect practices of doctors mean that it is a common occurrence for one to live much longer regardless of a terminally ill diagnosis. The errors and omissions that plague the NHS, already in a state of dysfunctional chaos, would undoubtedly lead to the deaths of people who could go on to live for years.
As well as the moral repugnancy of said policy, it demonstrates on an empirical basis the phenomenon of the ‘slippery slope.’ This is when the parameters that constitute the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide are reconceptualised after the government inevitably kowtows to external pressures. In Canada, for example, the MAID programme, Medical Assistance in Dying, relieves people from having to suffer from depression or other mental health issues. Canada looks to formally extend its assisted suicide programme to the mentally ill in 2027. There are other contemporary cases in which people have undertaken assisted suicide for being obese, homeless, or depressed. The slippery slope has led the country to break the record for the most deaths from euthanasia in 2023 at 15,280. A policy which was supposed to promote liberalism and allow the nation to signal its moral righteousness has paradoxically regressed a civilisation closer to barbarism.
Furthermore, the permissive implementation of assisted suicide in Canada has created the oxymoronic manifestation of altruistic dying. The idea is that by making it possible to end one’s life prematurely, it inadvertently cajoles and coerces vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, into doing so out of fear of being a burden to family members. This also occurred in Canada when a terminally ill patient ‘dialled a death’ (using the MAID system) immediately after diagnosis. Alas, its justification was not health-related per se but prompted out of compassion. The unfortunate reality is that the elderly will consider death to stop the state from eating up the value of their house through care costs, which the relatives could otherwise inherit. Interestingly, 40% of people who used assisted suicide in the US state of Oregon thought they were a ‘burden on their family’. This projects a bleak forecast for what heads Britain’s way if it follows the footsteps of Canada and the US.
If Britain legalises assisted suicide, it will transform the fabric of society and the nature of relations in families. The sacred barrier requisite to all healthy Christian societies that life is sacrosanct would deteriorate under conditions where assisted suicide is legal and, therefore, initiates the evil progression of the slippery slope. We will neglect our duty to protect the most vulnerable in society, opening the opportunity for malicious acts, such as selfishly coercing one to end their life to reap financial ends. In this case, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, correctly said the policy would put the vulnerable at risk.
Moreover, Britain unequivocally enters the slippery slope. The current discourse surrounding the terminal illness criteria encompassing a hypothetical Assisted Dying bill extends. Groups representing those with medical issues are already quarrelling about the bill's limited scope, such as the Movers and Shakers podcast. Those with Parkinson’s disease, they complain, would never receive a terminal diagnosis. Feeble governments, as with other countries where euthanasia has been legalised, will pander to these forces by introducing compassionate extensions, such as to incurable conditions or, like in Belgium, psychiatric disorders.
Ultimately, assisted suicide creates a barbaric society in which the power of determining life devolves from God to judges and doctors, both imperfect beings. It moralises and legitimises the killing of a human being under the false pretence that the pre-emptive act can hasten the inevitable. It distorts the relationship between the patient and doctor, in which the former exploits God’s will to end life prematurely. It allows for exploiting society’s most vulnerable for grotesque financial rewards. It creates a hellish dystopia that reduces man to an animal which society discards, once deemed worthless, in an archaic chronicle of the survival of the fittest. It establishes a degenerate, bleak culture in which people killing themselves is normalised using soothing language to placate its impact. It indeed erects a slippery slope in which ending the pain and suffering of the terminally ill suddenly metamorphoses into acts that are frighteningly connotative of eugenics, such as the ending of unproductive lives or the removal of societal ills such as homelessness and mental health issues. St. Paul best summarises such a slope when he says, ‘Satan himself masquerades as a shining angel.’
Image: Flickr
留言