The other day, I responded to Lord Falconer’s complaint that some MPs were bringing their faith into the debate on assisted dying. Today, Esther Rantzen has argued that opponents of assisted dying need to be open about their faith reasons.
Well as it happens, I agree with her (kind of). You see, I’ve persistently argued that we need to be up front about why our Christian faith and belief in the Bible provides a foundation for our opposition to euthanasia. I think this is particularly important because some responses might give the impression that all we need is better drafted legislation, more safe guards and more parliamentary time to scrutinize the legislation.
The problem with how Esther frames things is that it feeds into a narrative where on the one hand, you have proponents who are building their case on rational argument along with personal experience of suffering. On the other hand you have religious zealots who are against it for arbitrary reasons.
However, that simply is not the case. My “religious” reasons for opposing assisted suicide are first that God’s Word offers a worldview abut what our world is like and should be like, how we are meant to relate to each other, how we are to treat the vulnerable and how we are meant to face suffering. It also offers me a bigger picture about life, death and dying. From there, there are specific implications in the bible for how we are to approach our ownd eath and that of others. What we can and cannot do. So, this is not an arbitrary position. Rather it is a reasoned argument and whether or not it comes from a religious book, it holds together and I would argue is a better argument than the one offered by proponents.
It is also a better argument because it makes better sense of our experience. I appreciate that many proponents of euthanasia speak from their experience of either living with a terminal illness themselves or having loved ones who are or have suffered. We take those experiences seriously. However, we need to be clear too that we have also experienced suffering, sat with loved ones in the last moments, had friends and relatives who have suffered from long term terminal illness. I have and have had friends with terminal cancer, I have had 2 friends and one relative on my wife’s side live with and die from MND.
Personally the debate is poignant. It will be held exactly two years from the day when the doctors were starting to indicate to us that they dids not expect my mum to recover following surgery. Two years ago, we were sat round her bedside for those last few days. But mum had been suffering with an illness that caused acute pain for several years, my father in law too had lived with long term chronic illness. Am I not allowed to say that I would not have wanted them to have experienced the pressure to kill themselves and not “be a burden”?
My point though is that it is God’s Word and the Gopel, not the harsh proposals of assisted dying that have made best sense of those experiences.
On the other hand, as I pointed out the other day, surely it as much incumbent upon those arguing for assisted dying to be open about thir own beliefs and worldview. This means for example that those who claim to be Christian need to say more than just “Im a Christian and I’m in favour”. People like Lord Carey need to show how they have reached a position very different to what the Evangelical faith they claim to hold requires. It also means that those who speak from a secular humanist/atheist position need to be clear about that too. Again it is not just about gving your religious label but showing how your underlying presuppositions about human identity and the answers to the big questions about lie and the universe lead you to your conclusions.
We all come to the debate with presuppositions that are founded in what we believe. We all need to be open and honest about them. Christians can be open about how their faith shapes their views because it is a good thing.
Faithroots 