Why Christians say no to assisted suicide

Assisted suicide has returned to our political agenda and seems likely to stay there. As I write this, the Isle of Man parliament is discussing a bill which would legalise it. The Labour Party has committed to a free vote on the subject in parliament if it wins the next general election. The veteran campaigner and journalist Esther Rantzen has thrown her weight behind a change in the law since her diagnosis of inoperable cancer. It feels likely that some change in the law is on the way.  

Christians should resist any change firmly. If you go back thirty years, much of the debate about assisted suicide was put in terms of avoiding pain. Back then it was common for people with terminal conditions, particularly cancer, to experience terrible pain during their final illnesses. Modern analgesia has greatly reduced this, with the result that avoiding pain is no longer used as a major argument for assisted suicide. Today the argument is mostly made on the basis of personal autonomy and dignity (hence the main pressure group is called Dignity in Dying). Dying after a long struggle with a degenerative illness can lead to the loss of many of your faculties. Rather than endure this, and the resulting distress, why not end your life on your own terms, surrounded by the people you love?

 Language is highly contested in this debate. The phrase ‘assisted dying’ is preferred by those advocating for change. Unfortunately this phrase does not adequately describe what is suggested, which is why I prefer the less euphemistic phrase ‘assisted suicide’. For the loved ones of a dying person, any kind of suicide can be problematic. It is a very difficult thing to ask someone to help you end your life; it is hard to be asked, and harder still to keep going after you have done it. It is by no means as straightforward a task as offering assistance to someone who is struggling, as the bland phrase ‘assisted dying’ would have you believe.

Those of us who work with senior adults know that it is common for people to talk about not wanting to be a burden to their loved ones as they grow more frail. Once assisted suicide becomes an option, it offers a way for a person who feels like they are burdening others to find a way out. It could even legitimise the choice to commit suicide. The newspaper columnist Matthew Parris recently suggested that assisted suicide would be a way to reduce the impact of older people on the NHS. It is very dangerous to reduce human beings to economic units, where people who are no longer productive are no longer regarded as valued members of society. Senior adults have typically contributed huge amounts of money in taxation over their lifetimes, and these days many continue to be very active in retirement. They deserve the commitment our society has made for 75 years, to universal healthcare which is free at the point of delivery, irrespective of who receives it. So do those who are disabled and cannot contribute to society financially. They deserve our help and support not because of their financial worth, but because of their inherent value as humans. This idea is a profoundly Christian one which is worth defending. It goes back to the very first chapters of the Bible, where humanity is made in the image of God. Men and women, old and young, able bodied and disabled, are all God’s image-bearers. Our present debate shows the dangers of departing from this worldview. It is very dangerous to offer any legitimacy to the idea that there is a benefit to society for particular types of people to end their lives. History shows us where this kind of thinking can end. This point has been made strongly by campaigners for disability rights.

Those who argue for assisted suicide point to the terrible suffering endured by some people with particular conditions, for example motor neurone disease. To refuse people at the end of this degenerative journey the option of a peaceful end is to condemn them to suffer a lingering, unpleasant death. Some patients and their families have argued powerfully that this is inhumane and it is hard to dispute this. However, every law student will know the axiom ‘Hard cases make bad law’. If you legislate to avoid suffering in a very small proportion of cases, you risk opening the door to a much more permissive approach to assisted suicide for many others. Normalising this kind of death might also reduce the level of research into other ways to manage degenerative conditions. If the majority of people with motor neurone disease opt to end their lives before the condition becomes too advanced, where is the incentive or capacity to find new therapies to help people at that final stage? Medicine is constantly finding ways to alleviate chronic conditions. Allowing assisted suicide risks disincentivising this vital research. Around one in 300 people develop motor neurone disease; the impact they have on this debate needs to be proportionate.

Another problem with assisted suicide is that it would potentially be administered by doctors, the same doctors who are committed to doing everything in their power to help patients and treat illnesses. Giving the same doctors the responsibility for helping people to end their lives creates a serious cognitive dissonance. If a doctor can suggest assisted suicide as a legitimate alternative to treatment, that suggestion on its own comes with a power imbalance. Most people are used to taking their doctor’s advice.

There is another way. Back in the 1960s my grandfather Jack Wallace helped his friend Cicely Saunders to set up St Christopher’s Hospice. Saunders pioneered palliative care, a revolutionary new approach which aimed to treat ‘total pain’, the concept that a final illness brings pain not just physically to the suffering individual, but emotionally and spiritually. This total pain is experienced by their loved ones too. Good palliative care can transform this experience, treating not only the symptoms of the illness but also the emotional and relational effects of it. The UK was the pioneer in this field and remains at the cutting edge worldwide. Here in Woking I have met many people who have benefited from this approach through the work of Woking Hospice.

Christians can also resist the idea that there is a loss of dignity at the end of a degenerative illness. The doctor and ethicist John Wyatt tells the story of helping his mother as she was dying. He found himself spooning food into her mouth, realising that this is something which many people would find very undignified. He saw things differently, remembering that this was the woman who had spooned food into his mouth as a baby. What could be more dignified than to have the opportunity to give her the care she gave so freely, without a second thought? We do not think of babies as undignified because they cannot feed themselves and are doubly incontinent. It is not necessary to think of senior adults or the disabled in this way either, but rather as vulnerable people needing extra care.

The issue of assisted dying seems certain to be revisited for as long as it is prohibited. However, like Brexit, once we legislate for it, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. Christians do not agree on it; some advocate to permit it on humane grounds. However, what is humane for some sufferers today might not be so for others in the future. Opening the door to assisted suicide might close the door to other potential solutions to life-limiting illness. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to examine these issues with great care before we change the law.