The Right To Die

Who leads your life? The State? The Church? Or Yourself?

In the past, it was the Church that dictated so much of a person's life; spiritually, morally and communally.

Life, was something sacred; it was God given. Therefore, the individual’s ultimate power, the decision to end his life, was nothing short of a crime, a felo de se. The crime was a publishable offence, and the felon would have his burial on unconsecrated ground, typically at a crossroads with a stake driven through his heart.

A much more sympathetic approach is taken nowadays. However, being helped to end your life still remains unacceptable to the State.

The reason for this is down to a few powerful lobby groups which, time and again, prevent a change in the law.

The Church still has a dead hand on the affairs of the State and does not hesitate to inflict their views on the sanctity of life – even where it affects people who do not even believe in God.

The other lobby groups are disabled charities; generally the proponents are convinced that Euthanasia is one step away from Eugenics. They make a false equivalence between a weak body and a weak mind. The best possible counter example is Diane Pretty. She took her case for assisted suicide to the High Court and on to the European Court, such was her psychological strength in seeking justice for her partner. She failed – although some would say that the system failed her.

At the same time as these lobby groups preventing a change in the law, the reality is that we already have tacit assisted suicide in the UK.

Generally, this occurs through the administration of morphine, dressed up as palliative care.

A similar dichotomy between law and practice exists when it comes to taking a relative abroad to help them to die at the Swiss Dignitas clinic.

Recently, Lord Falconer proposed a measure in the House of Lords, which would have given such relatives immunity from prosecution. In practice, although such cases are investigated, they never lead to a prosecution.

Therefore, one would have thought it would not be difficult to put the measure through the House of Lords.

Not so. In a free vote the House of Lords defeated the amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill by 194 to 141.

Consequently, anyone helping a loved one travel on what would otherwise be a very lonely, final journey, would be at risk of prosecution. Their only comfort being - a reassuring nudge and a wink from the prosecution service! Is that really how we want to conduct this kind of desperate, emotionally charged, situation?

The Church and some disabled groups have inflicted their own morality and own life experience on to the life experience of other people. We are led to believe that the person choosing to end their life are always vulnerable, and at the mercy of iniquitous relatives. The reality is invariably different

Individuals may choose to end their lives for any number of reasons. It might be because of a terminal illness. It might be that they consider themselves to be a burden on their family. It might be because they do not want to be in a world without their partner e.g. consider the case of Sir Edward Downes who was losing his sight and hearing chose to die alongside his terminally ill wife at Dignitas; nota bene, both did not have any religious beliefs.

We should not over-revere life for life’s sake. For the great majority of us, life is not for the glory of God, it is merely an end in itself.

Life is precious, but who ultimately decides it’s value? The individual concerned? The Church? The State?

Speaking personally, as someone who loves life, I now find the sting of death fairly muted. As time goes on, I re-valuate my life – in my teenage years I feared death. Since then I have experienced love, and indeed experienced a great deal more – I find myself in a state of (in all honesty) having had my fill. If I had a terminal illness, it might just be that I would consider doing my own living will – something unthinkable twenty years ago.

Naturally, it is important that safeguards are put in place in any law legalising Euthanasia, but fundamentally we need to recognise the individual is sovereign over their own life. We need to come of age, we need to grasp that final, ultimate responsibility.