Euthanasia

CHRISTIANS AND EUTHANASIA

Due to "some silly remarks", to quote Mr. Justice Hooper, Dr. David Moor found himself this week before the Judge in a Newcastle court.

He was accused of murdering an 85 year old patient, George Liddell, a former ambulance man suffering from bowel cancer, by administering a lethal dose of diamorphine in order to alleviate his pain.

Dr. Moor's trouble goes back to 1997 when, in answer to a question from a journalist as to whether he had ever helped a terminally ill patient to die, the outspoken family doctor had replied, "I probably deal with about ten a year and have been doing that for thirty years".

Alas, he also went on to say that he had had two such patients in the previous week. One turned out to be Mr. Liddell, whose cremation was promptly halted, pending a post mortem.

In his defence, Dr. Moor admitted that he had given Mr. Liddell a large dose of diamorphine as a palliative in order to allow him a "pain free and comfortable death".

His defence was based upon the "double effect" principle. This maintains that a doctor is allowed in law to administer pain killing drugs that might kill a patient provided that the primary intention is to relieve suffering.

In other words, "there is a clear distinction to be drawn between rendering someone unconscious at the risk of killing (them), and killing (them) in order to render (them) unconscious", to quote the Church of England report published in 1974, Dying Well.

The report acknowledged that, "there is a decisive difference between the situation of a medical practitioner whose patient dies as a result of an increased dosage of pain killer, and who would have used a safer drug had it been available, and that of a public executioner in states which employ this means of carrying out the death penalty who chooses it for its death inducing properties".

It goes on to observe that "Two rivers may take their rise at a very little distance from one another on a mountain plateau, but the slight difference may determine that one flows north and the other flows south".

It was that "slight difference" that eventually enabled the jury to find Dr. Moor not guilty and allow him to go free this past week.

-0-0-0-

Whilst such medical practice is deemed by both the law and the Christian church not to be Euthanasia, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society was nevertheless present in court, hoping that Dr. Moor would become its first martyr to its cause.

The word "euthanasia" comes from a Greek word which means "to die well". Unfortunately it has come to be associated with the deliberate ending of life by a doctor at the request of a patient.

Such an action raises serious practical questions, as would be legislators have discovered in the past when the Bills of 1936 and 1969 failed to become law.

As regards legislation itself, it is difficult to define exceptions to the simple principle that it is wrong to take innocent lives in advance, in order to prevent exceptional cases being continually expanded under the pressure of many motives. Even courts of law are not bound by the intention of the original legislator when interpreting the law.

As regards the giving of consent by the would be patient, it is necessary that it be secured while the patient is in a right state of mind, for it to be voluntary. However, it raises the question as to whether it is also necessary for a patient to be in a similar state of mind in order to be able to withdraw their consent. Furthermore it is recognised that most

people's attitudes fluctuate according to moods as their condition deteriorates and it would therefore be hazardous to determine whether the patient still understood what they had decided earlier, and if they wished to abide by it.

This raises the whole question of freedom of choice. Those who had made no declaration could feel that it was the "only decent" thing to do, whether they wanted to or not. Furthermore, relatives, and even the state, could cause a patient to consider whether it was right to be a potential burden to their families or to the meagre limited financial resources of the National Health Service.

This brings us to the whole question of trust. After all, it is essential for the peace of mind of the patient and for their recovery, to know that a doctor is bound by the Hippocratic oath to do all that they can to preserve the life of their patient. If ever it became one of the functions of the medical profession to deliberately terminate life prematurely that necessary trust could be seriously eroded.

Finally, there are also inherent dangers behind any provision for voluntary euthanasia, namely, a doctor could make a wrong diagnosis; medical research may well find a cure during the patient's lifetime, and such medical research could be retarded by the lack of sufficient motivation to save life.

-0-0-0-

So much for some of the practical considerations one should bear in mind when considering voluntary euthanasia.

But what of the theological considerations which Christians should also bear in mind?

Firstly, Christians believe that our life is not our own to do what we like with. It is a gift from God which we hold in trust from him. Whilst we have the use of life, and therefore may prolong it, humankind may not destroy it at will.

Secondly, Christians believe that no one has the right to take an innocent life. As the author of the Book of Exodus states, "The innocent and just man thou shalt not put to death". And this is also echoed in the Book of Daniel "The innocent and just man thou shalt not kill". The only occasion when a Christian may take the life of another human being is when he or she is an unjust aggressor against an individual or the common good.

Thirdly, Christians believe that human suffering should be endured and not avoided. After all, life is made up of experiences of pain as well as of pleasure. We cannot pick and choose. Faith therefore demands that we remain faithful to the here and now rather than anticipate the future. Hence my late wife when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer wrote in her journal 'I do not ask the question why me but why not me.'

And finally, the practice of Christian love involves both giving and receiving of that love to and from others. As I have pointed out before, drawing upon William Vanstone's book The Stature of Waiting that activity and passivity are both of equal value. In other words, there is value in being the recipient of other peoples love, even when one lies helplessly upon one's death bed.

Perhaps this is the reason why Christians have been at the forefront in the development of the hospice movement, pioneered by Dr. Cecily Saunders, enabling people to die with dignity.

-0-0-0-

In conclusion, may I remind you of some words of Norman St. John Stevas in a letter published in The Times in 1969 on the subject of abortion.

He wrote "I believe that respect for human life is a fundamental pre-requisite of a civilised society, that the law should be particularly scrupulous in protecting life when it is in such a defenceless form as that of an unborn child, and that departure from this principle opens the way to such practices as euthanasia, both voluntary and compulsory".

I would suggest that we do well to ponder those words when we bear in mind that, within a mere few years of the decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia in Holland, a report published in 1991 observed that "doctors were shortening life without a request from the patient at the rate of some 15,000 cases a year".

I am therefore delighted that Dr. Moor chose not to become a martyr to the cause of The Voluntary Euthanasia Society this week.