Death is part of our human experience

There are times when it is better to “let nature take its course”.

By SALLY FOSTER-FULTON

The debate around assisted dying is undoubtedly a difficult and sensitive one. However, Nelson Jones’s recent blog, conflating as it did two very different issues, served only to muddy the waters.

In the piece, Jones sought to argue that because, in certain situations, a clinical decision is made by medical personnel not to attempt resuscitation of the patient, this is essentially equivalent to the medical profession making the decision to end the life of a vulnerable person. It would be more honest, Jones argued, to allow the choice of when their life should end to be made by the patient.

There can be little doubt that medical technology is now such that we can artificially prolong the lives of people through interventions which are at times inappropriate. However, in our death-denying culture, there are times when we need to remember that death is a part of our human experience, and that not every death is the result of a medical failure. There are times when the better decision is to let go, to step back and “let nature take its course”. This is the purpose of the “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) decision: that further medical intervention would be futile and of no benefit to the patient.

However, the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment differs fundamentally from the deliberate ending of life. The Church of Scotland is active in many projects offering care, comfort and support to the vulnerable in many practical ways. We therefore find the prospect of legislation allowing assisted dying to be deeply concerning, as it has the potential to undermine focus on the care and comfort of all as they move through the last stages of life- especially those who are placed in a vulnerable position as a result of age, incapacity or other circumstance.

While personal autonomy is indeed an important issue, it is a dangerous fallacy to believe that a person can act independently of all others, with their actions having no consequences for anybody else. Interpersonal relationships are vital: life is lived and death experienced as part of community. Assisted suicide cannot be a personal choice because it will inevitably effect everyone, and how tragic if those most vulnerable in our communities begin to feel that their lives are somehow less worth our resources. What a tragically bleak view of human life- and how far removed from the call of the church to show love and concern, compassion and support for all around us.

Death, as a natural process, cannot be avoided: despite the inevitable sadness involved in saying farewell to a loved one, emphasis should be placed on ensuring that all participants in the process experience as fulfilled and comfortable a final journey as possible.

We would emphasise the need for all aspects of care to be improved; there is concern, however, that assisted dying legalisation will undermine, rather than enhance, other aspects of end of life care and the manner in which society values every human being. Clearly it would be a step too far if vulnerable patients felt pressured to opt for assisted dying because of a lack of resources to give them an acceptable quality of life in their last months.

In common with many people of faith, the Church of Scotland would affirm that the worth and dignity of every human life needs to be emphasised and celebrated. Indeed, the Gospel of Jesus Christ which the Church of Scotland seeks to live out emphasises the value and worth of all human life, no matter the circumstances. Any legislation to bring about the deliberate ending of a human life would be a sea-change in how we perceive one another. Society places a prohibition on the killing of others (because we understand the profound commonality of life): this is a line which we must not cross.

Complete Article HERE!

Permitted assisted dying could increase protection for vulnerable people

The only person who can decide if a life is worth living is the one living it.

By: NELSON JONES

Tony Nicklinson may not have achieved his wish for doctors to be allowed to terminate his life at a place and time of his choosing, but he did manage to push the subject of assisted dying higher up the public agenda than it has been for a long time. And while he didn’t convince the judges at the High Court, public opinion would seem to be firmly on his side. A YouGov poll conducted on behalf of the British Humanist Association last week found that a massive 81 per cent of adults (and two thirds of Roman Catholics) would support the right of “mentally competent individuals with incurable or terminal diseases” to access medical support to end their lives. Only 6 per cent were “strongly opposed”.

Support, too, has come from some leading politicians, such as the newly-appointed health minister Anna Soubry, who called the present state of the law “ridiculous and appalling”.

Even so, opposition to any change remains entrenched and seemingly unmovable. Many MPs, almost all religious leaders and the official policy of the BMA are implacably opposed to legalising voluntary euthanasia, which the current BMA president has described as “a journey I just don’t want us to even start out on”.

For some, the question is forever out of bounds because life is sacred and can properly be terminated only by God. But there are more pragmatic arguments, too, that convince many that assisted dying is inherently dangerous. It’s said that if the law were changed, vulnerable people would feel under pressure to end their lives in order to spare their families (or the taxpayer) the “burden” of their continued existence. That a system of planned death, timetabled according to personal or medical convenience, would cheapen life itself, would enshrine in law the idea that some lives were not worth living, and could potentially lead to a eugenic society in which the chronically sick, the elderly and the disabled were seen as disposable, by themselves or by others.

Such an argument may sound plausible. But can we be sure that we don’t live in such a society already? Today we learned of the case of an unnamed man, aged 51, with Down’s Syndrome and other disabilities, who spent some time in hospital last year. After “AWA” was discharged it emerged that without the knowledge of his family or carers doctors had placed a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order on his file. The sole reason given for the notice – which would have resulted in his inevitable death had he suffered a cardiac arrest or encountered serious breathing difficulties – was apparently his disability. He does not seem to have been terminally ill.

We must, of course, be careful. It is only one case. The NHS trust concerned has declined to comment on the ongoing legal action and there may be significant facts that haven’t been reported. AWA’s solicitor, Merry Varney however, described it as “one of the most extreme cases we have seen” and declared that “to use Down’s Syndrome and learning difficulties as a reason to withhold lifesaving treatment is nothing short of blatant prejudice.”

“Extreme” this case may be, but problems relating to DNR notices are far from unheard of. In another case currently before the courts, David Tracey is suing Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge over a DNR issued in respect of his wife who died there last year, and which was apparently discussed neither with her nor with him. He was also being represented by Merry Varney, who argued that “a competent patient must surely know when a decision to withhold potentially life sustaining treatment has been made.”

A survey of 100 hospitals carried out last year by the Care Quality Commission found that at least five were in breach of medical guidance regarding consultation with families before issuing a DNR notice. On one ward, as many as a third of such orders were issued without consultation. The charity Action on Elder Abuse described such practices as “euthanasia by the backdoor”.

Even if such cases are not the norm, they might be seen as evidence of a callously utilitarian approach to questions of life and death even without legalised euthanasia. AWA’s case in particular suggests that vulnerable patients might be especially, well, vulnerable to such an attitude. Yet others tell a different story, of elderly and vulnerable or terminally-ill people, sometimes in pain, past all hope of full recovery and who in an earlier age would have died peacefully, being artificially kept alive by well-meaning doctors and by the death-cheating power of modern medicine.

In today’s legal and medical regime, it would appear, some people are allowed to die who would rather live, while others are unwillingly kept alive when they want to die.

These two undesirable situations in fact represent different sides of the same coin: the paternalist attitude that sees medical professionals, rather than individual patients, as the people best placed to make the decision about whether he lives or dies. Tony Nicklinson, intellectually fully competent and certain in his own mind, is not allowed to determine the manner of his death. Nor is the more obviously vulnerable AWA. A system supposedly concerned with protecting the vulnerable only succeeds in reinforcing the godlike power of doctors.

For that reason, I suspect legislation that permitted assisted dying would actually increase the protection currently afforded to vulnerable people, and increase respect for the value of life. There’s no contradiction between saying that all lives are valuable and that some have become intolerably burdensome. Rather, knowledge that they would not be condemned, in extremis, to a lingering agony at the hands of modern medicine would free some patients to live. And those who chose for reasons of faith or optimism to cling to every last painful moment of life could do so without causing others to feel guilt for their plight, which is the real “burden” which people with severe disabilities or who are in the last stages of terminal illness impose on their loved-ones.

The only person capable of deciding whether a life is or is not worth living, ultimately, is the one who is living it.

Complete Article HERE!

New Tory health chief Anna Soubry slams law that forces terminally ill Brits to die abroad

NEWLY promoted UK health minister Anna Soubry said terminally ill people should be able to receive assistance in ending their lives in the UK.

DAVID CAMERON’S new health minister yesterday slated current laws on assisted ­suicide as “ridiculous”.

Newly promoted UK health minister Anna Soubry said terminally ill people should be able to receive assistance in ending their lives in the UK.

Last night, her comments were ­welcomed by independent MSP Margo MacDonald, who has fought to have assisted suicide legalised in Scotland.

MacDonald said: “These comments are very welcome. They are more realistic and in tune with public opinion than what we have heard from politicians in all parties, with one or two laudable exceptions.

“I am absolutely delighted that the wind is blowing that way.”

The Lothian MSP, who has Parkinson’s disease, has attempted to change the
law in Scotland with her End of Life ­Assistance Bill.

The bill was rejected by MSPs last year but she has vowed to reintroduce it.

She said: “I think this will help MSPs, particularly the newer ones, feel freer about supporting it and we will have a greater chance of success this time.”

Soubry called for greater “honesty” about when prosecutions would be brought for helping relatives to die.

She said: “You can’t say to a doctor or a nurse, ‘You can kill this person’.”

Soubry added: “I think it’s ridiculous and appalling that people have to go abroad to end their life instead of being able to end their life at home. The rules we have about who we don’t prosecute allow things to happen but there’s a good ­argument that we should be a bit more honest about it.”

Her comments came after locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson died a week after he lost his legal bid to end his life with a doctor’s help.

His widow Jane welcomed Soubry’s comments.

She said: “We’re pleased that she has come forward and said this. It does open the debate even more, having an MP who’s willing to stick her neck out and actually support assisted suicide.”

But anti-euthanasia group SPUC ­Pro-Life general secretary Paul Tully said: “The goodwill among the public towards people with disabilities has never been higher than at the Paralympic Games.

“Suddenly they are faced with the ­prospect that if they struggle with suicidal feelings, they will be given help to die instead of care and support.”

Complete Article HERE!