Bishop of Leicester opposes Assisted Suicide Bill

By Keith -

Yet another prominent religionist has decided that his god wants to dictate our rights and freedoms. The Bishop of Leicester's letter to the Mercury is available here . This is my response:


Due to his misguided beliefs the Bishop of Leicester has come out against a Bill that would finally grant people the right to die with dignity at a time and in a manner of their choosing. In doing so he has helped condemn large numbers of people to years of avoidable physical and psychological pain. Whilst he is justifiably concerned that some people may be pressured into hastening their own demise, he conveniently ignores the evidence from places such as Oregon and Switzerland, which shows that allowing assisted suicide does not lead to people choosing to die early because they feel they’ve become burdens.

Why is a 27 year old atheist supporting assisted suicide when to atheists this life is the only one we’ve got? Let me explain. In my family we have a history of late onset mental disorders, including Alzheimer’s, which studies suggest is hereditary. I also have an extreme fear of all things medical which has caused numerous panic attacks and two nervous breakdowns – in short, I really don’t like hospitals. I’ve seen Alzheimer’s first hand, my grandfather died of it several years ago. Like other disorders such as dementia it kills its victims over a long period of progressive mental deterioration and sufferers require 24 hour care in their final years, yet they are also obviously conscious of what’s going on around them until near the end. If I ever come down with the disease, or any other terminal illness, then I want the right to be spared what for me would be hell on Earth. A simple Living Will would make this clear, but they need to be made legally binding to ensure they can be enacted, and anyone asked to assist some in their wishes should not have to fear being prosecuted for performing a final and immensely difficult act of love and kindness.

I don’t believe in a god, but I’m not afraid of death. No fictional deity has determined when I’m going to die, or that I have no right to influence when I go. If I’m wrong then she and I can have that debate once I’ve recovered from the shock of waking up in an afterlife! What Lord Joffe, myself, and many others want is the right to choose not to suffer, and that those we may ask to assist us in exercising that right are protected from prosecution.

I thought the alleviation of suffering was a Christian virtue?

Keith

Comments

  1. Anonymous15 May 2006 at 20:57:00 BST

    While I understand the thinking behind the bill and why humanists tend to support it, in my view this is not a necessary part of being a humanist.

    I take the view that anyone who really wants to kill themselves can do so very easily by umpteen methods, and it is not ethical to get others involved in doing something you are too ignorant or fearful to do yourself.

    Probably I'm just an old stiff-upper lip stoic, which seems to be out of fashion these days, but is a good solid rational philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keith24 May 2006 at 03:31:00 BST

    If I was that fearful and less ignorant (of the future, which we can't predict exactly anyway) then I'd do myself in now.

    I was talking about the right to make a legally binding living will. The right to decide how you wish to be treated should you become permanently incapacitated beyond a level that you would personally consider to be able to live life with dignity. Furthermore, the right to trust someone enough to know that they will carry out un unbelievably difficult act (and I'm not sure I could do it as I haven't been there) without them facing a prison sentence for a final act of love.

    In my own case there is evidence that suggests that, if I don't wear myself out with over-indinulgence first :) there is a fair chance that I may come down with a disease that permanently impairs my judgement but (from what I've seen) retains the sense of 'self' to some extent or other. Whether I'm aware of it or not I do not wish to suffer years of progressively degenerative mental illness, and I wish to choose not to do so whilst I am able. Even if Alzheimer's, or any other disease, was to remove the phobia that paralyses me (and I very much doubt it does) then I want to be able to choose to die with dignity whilst I am of (reasonably) sound mind.

    Surely to do so is stoical? Did Brutus not choose to die with dignity on his own sword?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ann Atkins at it again

By Anonymous -
Below is an email our member Frank Friedmann sent to the BBC, concerning Ann Atkins' latest "Thought for the Day", and their response. ====== -- To BBC -- Dear Sir, Ann Atkins used the programme on 9 May 2006 today to launch an attack on Rationalists. That she can do so shows up the lack of natural justice in the policy of denying atheists access to the programme - they can be collectively slandered and misrepresented but have no right of reply. I notice that speakers on the programme do not use it as a platform from which to condemn the adherents of other religions - I don’t know if this is out of respect or because they are constrained by editorial rules, but it does emphasise the injustice in the censorship of atheism. Were you to change the policy, might I put forward my wife, Eleanor Davidson, as a candidate? She has just become the country’s first Humanist member of a hospital chaplaincy team (See First Person article in Leicester Mercury 29 April 2006). [See also
Read more

Hindu Council UK objects to talk on "Hinduism: A Wretched, Immoral Compass"

By -
Image
The Society hosted a talk on the caste system on 3rd December 2023. Before the talk on 19th November the Secretary of the Society received the following email - We write to express our deep concern and offense regarding the title of an event scheduled to take place at your venue, titled "Hinduism: Wretched Immoral Compass." It has come to our attention that such a choice of words is not only derogatory but also appears to be anti-Hinduism.   Hinduism, a faith with a rich history spanning thousands of years and followed by over one billion people worldwide, deserves respect and understanding. Using such inflammatory language seems designed to appeal and incite hatred towards Hindus, who are one of the largest and most peaceful communities globally. As a secular society, we believe it is your responsibility to avoid language that may be offensive or disrespectful towards any faith.   We urge you to consider the implications of this event title and whether it aligns with t
Read more

Statement about recent violent incidents in the City.

By -
Leicester Secular Society condemns the recent violence promoted by religious extremists. We condemn those of any religion who seek to divide society, advocate for the domination of their religion and use violence against those with different beliefs. We believe that a truly secular city and county is the only way to guarantee equality to the many different religions and communities we have. We believe that the continued existence and further creation of faith schools in Leicester can only drive communities apart and encourage the growth of intolerance. We do not want to see any more segregation in Leicester. Belfast demonstrates the danger of a failure to promote inter community friendships. We don't ever want to see "peace walls" appearing in our city. Since 1851, the Leicester Secular Society has opposed religious discrimination and stands for an inclusive and plural society.
Read more