A few weeks ago, I was on a discussion panel on a local TV station, and near the end of the hour, the question of assisted dying came up, and (wearing my dog collar) I was asked my views. I felt I was unprepared, and I reached for the common practical issues of care for the vulnerable, the ‘slippery slope’ of who would be eligible, the sense of pressure that the dependent would feel, and the serious issue of changing the role of the medical profession from protecting life to removing it. These are all important arguments (to which I will return below), but I was caught short when the person next to me turned to me and said ‘You’re a man of the cloth: what about God?’ It was interesting being challenged to be more religious on a secular debate by a non-Christian! I immediately responded with comments about life being a gift from God, and humans being more than rational, autonomous individuals. But I am not sure I did a very good job.
I was pleased when, three weeks ago, Justin Welby did speak up in opposition to the forthcoming Assisted Dying bill—but I sensed he fell into the same trap as I did.
Good palliative care can provide us with the dignity and compassion we are all searching for as we reach the end of our lives. This proposed legislation risks eroding funding for palliative and hospice care.
Furthermore, legalising assisted suicide would disproportionately impact many millions of vulnerable people, who might perceive themselves as a burden on those around them and the health service. My concern is that once you can ask for assisted suicide, it soon becomes something that you feel that you ought to do. Permission slips into being duty. This does not represent true choice for all, and I worry that no amount of safeguards will ensure everyone’s safety at the most vulnerable point of their lives.
These are good points—but anyone could make them. There is nothing distinctively Christian about them. So what do Christians have to say, and what relation might theological concerns have to the practical issues raised here?
A quick scrape of the internet suggests these as the main classic Christian (theological) arguments against assisted dying:
1. Sanctity of Life: Life is sacred because it is a gift from God. From conception to natural death, life is viewed as having intrinsic value, independent of one’s circumstances or physical condition. Assisted dying, which actively ends life, is seen as violating this principle. The Bible affirms the sanctity of life in passages like Genesis 1:27, where human beings are described as created in the image of God. This implies that life has dignity and worth, and that only God has the authority to give and take life (cf. Job 1:21).
2. Divine Sovereignty: Christians believe that God is sovereign over life and death. Suffering, illness, and the end of life are part of God’s providential plan, and choosing the timing of death through assisted dying is seen as rejecting God’s will.
3. Redemptive Value of Suffering: Many Christians believe that suffering has spiritual significance and can be a way to grow in virtue, patience, or trust in God. Christ’s own suffering and death on the cross is seen as the ultimate example of how suffering can have redemptive value.
4. Violation of the Commandment Against Killing: The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) is often cited as a clear prohibition against assisted dying. While this commandment traditionally refers to murder, many Christians interpret it broadly to include any intentional act that prematurely ends a human life, even in the context of terminal illness.
5. The Nature of Compassion: Some proponents of assisted dying argue that it is a compassionate response to suffering. However, Christians often respond that true compassion (from Latin “to suffer with”) means accompanying someone through their suffering, not eliminating the person to end the suffering.
6. Human Fallibility and Slippery Slope Concerns: Once assisted dying is legalized, it may expand beyond terminally ill patients to those with chronic illness, depression, or other conditions. The risk is that vulnerable people may feel pressured into assisted dying because they feel like a burden or because society begins to devalue certain lives.
7. The Role of Hope in Suffering and Dying: Christians hold a belief in hope, even in the face of death. Terminal illness is not the end from a Christian perspective, because of the hope of resurrection and eternal life. Assisted dying, by cutting short a life, may be seen as diminishing this hope and denying the possibility of finding meaning, healing, or reconciliation in the final stages of life.
An immediate observation here is that some of these claims can only make sense for those who believe in God or are Christians, and so might be dismissed as irrelevant in a secular society. And others of them potentially present serious problems: in particular, 2 and 3 could lead people to simply allows others to suffer, crudely put ‘because it’s God’s will’ and ‘because it is good for you’. That might sound trivial, but in fact it is quite common in ordinary discussion to hear people comment: ‘I would not allow my dog to suffer like that, I would put it out of its misery—so why not my friend or relative?’
Yet others of these points are compelling and well evidenced. It appears that, in every jurisdiction where assisted dying has been introduced, its scope has been relentlessly expanded.
In the Netherlands, euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized in 2002. Initially, the law applied to those with terminal illnesses who were experiencing unbearable suffering. However, over time, the criteria have expanded, both legally and in practice, to include non-terminal illnesses and dementia. Patients suffering from chronic but non-terminal conditions, such as psychiatric disorders or dementia, have increasingly been approved for euthanasia. A 2016 report revealed that euthanasia cases involving psychiatric patients increased, with dozens of cases annually in which patients with mental health conditions (such as depression) were granted euthanasia. Euthanasia for dementia patients is becoming more common, even when these individuals are no longer capable of giving fully informed consent at the time of the procedure. If they have previously given an advanced directive, the procedure may be carried out without their current explicit consent. There have been increasing calls, even among medical professionals and ethicists in the Netherlands, for euthanasia to be allowed for those who are “tired of life” or feel their life is complete, even if they are not suffering from a serious illness.
Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002, and since then, the law has expanded dramatically. In 2014, Belgium became the first country to allow euthanasia for minors without age restrictions. Although cases of minors receiving euthanasia remain rare, it represents a significant expansion beyond the original framework for adults with terminal illnesses. Like the Netherlands, Belgium now allows euthanasia for people suffering from mental illnesses or chronic, non-terminal conditions. For example, cases have been reported where individuals suffering from depression or psychological distress have been granted euthanasia, raising ethical concerns about whether these patients could have recovered or been treated.
John Wyatt, commenting on the Meacher bill in 2021, challenged the idea of ‘informed decision without coercion’ (common language used as a form of protection of the vulnerable) as being unworkable in practice.
Consider an elderly person who has a great fear of being a burden to his or her loved ones and who wishes to end their life to avoid this. Is it possible that the relatives are applying subtle pressure and covert manipulation? Both abuse and abandonment of elderly people is shockingly common in our society. How is it possible to avoid inappropriate pressure being applied to elderly and vulnerable people? Most busy doctors are simply ill-equipped and inadequately trained to detect subtle forms of social manipulation and coercion.
In the US state of Oregon, where assisted suicide legislation has been in force for many years, between 40 and 60% of people have given ‘perceiving self as being a burden to others’ as a reason for choosing to kill themselves. It is common to find elderly people who are concerned that they are becoming an unwanted burden on their relatives and carers. Desiring to act responsibly and altruistically, they may come to believe that it would be better for everybody if their life came to an end. There is a deep and tragic irony that it is precisely those elderly people who are most sensitive to the needs and concerns of others who may be most at risk of being emotionally manipulated into taking their own lives.
This creeping of both categories and motivations appears to be inevitable from the jurisdictions where it is practiced—so is this just a coincidence or is it inherent? There was a fascinating debate in Prospect magazine in October between former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and former President of the Supreme Court Brenda Hale—ironically entitled ‘You wouldn’t let a dog suffer like this’—which exposed the issue. Alan Rusbridger, chairing the debate, asks: ‘How do you deal with the pressure questions—pressure from family or financial pressures? What safeguards can you build in?’ and Hale responds:
Well, you can build in the safeguards that the decision must be made without undue influence, coercion, duress or fraud. But in the end, it’s a matter of evidence, isn’t it? One of the things I find most difficult is that I don’t think it’s necessarily irrational for somebody to take into account the suffering their suffering is causing to the people dear to them, or the burden that looking after them is placing upon the whole community.
I wouldn’t call that “undue influence”, but it’s one of the questions I find most difficult about all of this. You know, obviously there’s duress, there’s financial abuse, there are all of those sorts of things that have got to be checked against, and there ought to be objective evidence of absence of that. But when it comes down to somebody thinking, “I don’t want to be a cause of others suffering,” that seems to me to be a reasonable thing for somebody to take into account.
Jonathan Rowlands responds to this by arguing ‘In praise of being a burden‘.
Throughout his entire life Jesus lived the perfect life of human joy and faithfulness. And this often involved depending upon others and being a burden to them in every way conceivable. We are made to be a burden, then. To depend on others, to be burdensome to them, is to be human.
To think, then, with Baroness Hale, that my dependency and burdensomeness upon others might somehow serve to underwrite a decision to end my life, is fraught with difficulty for me as a Christian. I simply cannot reconcile her words with the life I see Jesus living in the Bible: a life of joyful, difficult burdensomeness.
But we need to note that this is not simply a truth for Christians; it is true for everyone. And this question is inherent in the assisted dying debate. Either all lives are worth protecting and supporting, all are valued, regardless of their pain, dignity, and suffering, or some are not. There is no middle ground. And the moment that you concede that some are not, you are in quite different territory. As Andrew Goddard commented here in response to the Falconer bill in the House of Lords in 2014:
Unless the law allows an unrestricted “right to die”, it needs to define certain groups of people who would be eligible for assistance in ending their lives; in so doing it excludes other people whose situation of suffering would appear to require similar treatment. Despite Lord Carey’s protestations that “it would be outrageous” if the bill’s scope “were extended beyond the terminally ill to an ever-widening group of people, including the disabled and the depressed” his own argument shows that this is not a possible slippery-slope arising from human weakness. It is rather the inherent logic of the position he has adopted. Compassion as he defines it and the cases he cites must lead to a widening of the scope of those able to be legally assisted to kill themselves and, lest we discriminate against those physically incapable of ending their own lives even with assistance, will press hard on extending this to allowing others to kill them.
What all proposals on assisted dying do is make a fundamental assumption about what it means to be human. It has to assume that we are rational, that we are immune to coercion, that to be a burden is problematic, that we are individuals who are not embedded in community and relationships, and that we can perfectly predict the future. It is on this last point that point 7 in my initial list bears most fruit. What would happen to those struggling with depression who feel suicidal, if they were offered assisted dying each time? Is there really no future for people who go through such things? As John Wyatt summarises:
And can we or others always detect the covert influences and emotional factors which lie behind our choices? In the words of Professor Nigel Biggar, the notion that we are all rational choosers is a flattering lie told us by people who want to sell us something. If Freud has taught the heirs of modernity anything, it is the uncomfortable truth that much of the time we are influenced and motivated by social and psychological forces that we barely understand.
That is why the distinctively Christian idea of the sanctity of life, arising from the belief that life is, in the end, a gift from God, provides the essential resources that even a secular society needs to live well. No secular belief system can offer what secular life actually needs.
Seen and Unseen offers great resources on this. They have been collated into an ebook which you can download at the foot of the page here.
Buy me a Coffee
Thank you. As you say there is little theological engagement.
As often is the case atheists ask testing questions of Christians.
For more on the slippery slope there is a recent publication here:
https://www.christian.org.uk/resources/publication/
In my last employment in the NHS in Public Health a priority theme was ‘having a good death’.
One of the outworking was what became known as the ‘Liverpool Care Pathway’ which had resulted in widespread criticism and the misuse of ‘Do Not Resuscitate, DNR’s.
I recall asking a question at a senior staff ‘ good death’ meeting, what about how it applies to people of faith believing heaven and hell, how can there be any assurance that death is good?
It was met with a nonplussed, embarrased silence fromthe then Director of Public Health.
Yes, the Liverpool Pathway was a disaster, and shows exactly what happens with this kind of thing.
Hello,
Could I tentatively suggest that the problem with the LCP was its misuse – the intention was never for it to be a means of covertly inflicting death.
DNACPR forms can be, and have been, misused without any connection to the LCP, as we saw during the Covid pandemic for example.
“The answer to misuse / abuse is right use”, etc. But given that such misuses happen with the legal framework we have now, it seems odd that a majority want to change the law such that greater risk of greater abuses is likely (or at least possible).
Maybe that’s bit poorly phrased but I hope not unclear…
In friendship, Blair
I know a GP who is a committed Christian who says that the dying are often put on hydration and nutrition drips when they never would in the normal course of things take fluid or foodstuffs, and that the Liverpool pathway simply doesn’t do that.
On the other hand I was asked when my father was dying if I wanted him kept alive by such means. I said Yes, simply because he was not a believer and I wanted to give him evey chance to be one.
This question cannot be taken in isolation from hospital resources and thir best use. It is a deeply complex issue.
Nobody dies peacefully, Many die quietly. That is not the same thing. Every cell is screaming for oxygen but the whole body can no longer scream. There is no good way out of this world. That is because death is a punishment. And we deserve it, for God is just. Our sinful flesh deserves to rot. But some will get better than we deserve and rise again.
Michael Wenham remains my guru on this subject: https://www.davidalton.net/2021/10/13/powerful-statement-by-michael-wenham-diagnosed-twenty-years-ago-with-mnd-and-who-opposes-assisted-suicide-says-i-am-still-able-to-enjoy-my-limited-life-and-grateful-that-i-wasnt-able-to-be/
Yes; one of the essays in the Seen and Unseen book I link to is by him.
The care of elderly patients has worsened in the past 20 years and I feel they are very vulnerable to suggestions of being a burden.
In 2002 my mother moved into a care home as she had Parkinson’s Disease with Louie Bodie Syndrome (which is a form of dementia). I felt she was cared for well and was moved into the nursing section when she became very ill
We were called to say she had worsened and they were damping her lips and turning her. I was able to read her The 23rd Psalm and say my goodbyes. It was her 89th birthday the next day. She died at 5 o’clock the next morning .
From 2020 to 2023 my sister had a terrible time. She was had been deteriorating with dementia for a few years. In 2020 she was unfortunately taken into hospital and remained there for 2 weeks with no visiting. They announced she had caught Covid and of course was imprisoned there until discharged to a holding centre in Leeds for the overflow until a home was found. By the time she left hospital she could no longer walk as the staff did not have time to walk her. The holding centre had to teach her to walk again. They allowed me video calls and at this stage she still recognised me but could not understand why she could not touch me. After 2 months they sent her to a nursing home which was not of a good standard. The patients wandered round on walkers like zombies up and down the corridors. Finally she was moved into another unit which was much quieter and even had a door out to a safe garden. Unfortunately she was taken ill again and sent to St James’ Hospital in Leeds where they managed to totally wreck what was left of her. I went to see her when we was back in the Home and immediately knew she would not recover – it was a shock to see her. A few days later I was informed that she had been placed on end of life care. That was on Wednesday and she died on Friday, so Midazalam did it’s job. She was 82 years old and was a loving sister to me and all her family. She deserved so much more care, but the system is broken.
We do not need assisted dying – we need assisted living and care for people, plus Hospices for the terminally ill.
Thank you for this post. We need quality care for the aged. So many fear going into nursing homes and would rather be dead
Ian, I think you were being a bit hard on yourself when you talked about the “trap” you and ++Justin “fell into”. Of course your Christian principles and mine would not allow us to support euthanasia (yes, let’s call it by its proper name), but if you advance them as your argument you’ll quickly get the response “Why should people have to suffer for your principles?” (The militant trans lobby do it too, but I doubt that’s a defence in this context.) So I think you were quite right to point to factors that those who aren’t Christians (or following other faiths that also believe in the sanctity of life) can appreciate. Perhaps a good way might be to say something like “Well, as a Christian I believe that….. but if you can’t come on board with that, there’s also….”.
Thanks. That was exactly my feeling when faced with the question: what issues can we have common cause on. But I was then brought up short by the follow-up!
And it made me realise that my first response was an incomplete answer. Perhaps non-Christians actually expect that Christians might talk about God? I think we could do with a bit more of it!
Especially if the answer would be ‘Belief in God actually gives you what you need to protect those you are concerned about…’
For me, the fundamental issue is society’s attachment to “bodily autonomy”, which undergirds many of the rights, so prevalent today. However, it is directly opposed to the Christianity’s understanding that we are all made in the image of God, so it is sad to see the church so cowed by the law that it doesn’t proclaim this as a fundamental truth.
Yes, and the idea that there are no power dynamics in relationships.
Right to life;
https://righttolife.org.uk/ASthreat
If concerned, it is easy to complete to notify local MP’s of their constituent’s objections with (editable) reasons.
https://righttolife.org.uk/ASthreat
I have mixed feelings about this. I notice that when the deaths of well-known people are reported, it typically says ‘she died peacefully..’. It still brings tears to my eyes when I think about the last 12 and more hours of my mum’s life, when she was dying. I and others found it a traumatic experience. I dont know what she herself was experiencing, but it was traumatic for me to watch and will never forget it. We had been asked a while before this if we wanted them to intervene once it became apparent she was in her last few days, or let nature go its course. We chose the latter. Perhaps there was nothing that could be done in those last few hours. I dont know. Tearing up now.
Hi Peter,
I suppose technology to blame. It can prolong life. It can hasten its end.
The problem is, we are left to make the moral choices which never happened before.
PS just read Pilgrims Progress. The characters all go down to The River one by one.All seem happy to go. Probably says something about life in England in the C17.
Actually Steve in my mum’s case there was no technology involved.
I was thinking of technology in the general sense. We no longer live like people did in the seventeenth century. Then, when old age finally creeps up on us we have medical interventions to ease our suffering. Finally we get injected with morphine in increasingly higher doses until it finish’s us off. Is that euthanasia, or simply technology helping us along?
The morphine is given with the aim of easing pain, treating the patient, not to killing the patient. We know that death can be the outcome but that it is not the reason medication is given.
There’s nothing new in this.
I’d like to suggest we also speak up for suffering. Joni Eareckson says she’d rather have had all the suffering she has had and the benefits therefrom, than no suffering and miss those benefits. She added, ‘God has been more glorified this way than if I’d been a great athlete.’ (not just the paralysis – how much she has written also about learning how to suffer well). A few days before Oswald Sanders’s wife died he was trying to make her comfortable and she said ‘Don’t make things too easy for me dear. I don’t want to become fussy; I must keep on growing.’
Even our Lord needed suffering to grow: Heb.2.18,4.15 there’s a sympathy that can be born only through suffering, 2.10 a maturity that can be gained only through suffering,
Is there not also the compassion we learn as we support those who suffer? If we think ‘save Granny suffering, let’s put her to death’ we are missing out on a whole growth in tears, skill and relationship. See Sally Magnusson’s book ‘Where memories go.’
I can see your point, and for *Christians* that argument has some merit. I think there is though a real difficulty in the language of someone else telling a person that their suffering is good, when it doesn’t feel like it.
I dont think the argument it’s good for others to suffer for our benefit, eg our own personal ‘growth’, holds water. Most sane people looking at another’s suffering would not wish that suffering for themselves. In which case they shouldnt think it’s fortunate the other is suffering.
The theological question must be what is God’s view of the matter? This is important if we have to face Him at the Judgement.
well yes, and that for most will come down to our understanding of the Bible. But as you know many have varying interpretations of various biblical passages on a number of issues. Some Christians believe abortion is acceptable as although life has begun at conception, human personhood has not. Other Christians believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances. Others believe it is wrong in most circumstances but acceptable in others, eg if the woman’s life is in danger (Ive never quite understood that position if life is life – they seem to be strangely arguing the fully developed life is more important than the developing life which seems to contradict their whole argument).
Do you see the difficulty of actually knowing God’s view on the matter.
A sentient creature may kill s sentient creature. A human being may kill a dog.
But a sapient being nan exercise wisdom and moral and ethical decisions with foreseeable consequences and an interest in the common societal good of humanity; what it means to be human?
Some people argue if we as human beings can have so much compassion on dogs so as to stop their further inevitable suffering, why do we not show even more compassion to fellow human beings?
Who said “pity poor animals who suffer more than their fair share of human kindness”?
Theos have done an excellent report on the subject of Dignity, arguing that the most commonly assumed secular definitions driving the assisted dying debate are insufficient. It shows the importance of understanding that there is an inherent dignity in being human, which comes from being made in the image of God and made for relationship with Him, but also for relationship with other people.
This is backed up by interviews with those involved in palliative care showing what factors are necessary for “a good death” based on their experience. This is tied together with the theological and philosophical premises of the report.
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/cmsfiles/Meaning-of-Dignity-report-FINAL.pdf
Thanks. That looks like a great resource—and I think they are making a similar point. Either human life has inherent dignity, or it does not.
Hi William and Ian.
Thanks, this does look like it could be a great resource, but…
‘This essay will analyse ‘dignity’ as a concept. It will explore
the various – essentially two – different conceptualisations
of dignity.’ (p.20)
does not get it off to a good start. The old conundrum of language and meaning (remember James Barr?). I will read further to see if my fears are confirmed or not.
While I’ve yet to look at the Theos report on phone, a developed philosophical argument could be made out.
This isn’t one.
1. ” I think therefore I am.”
Rene Descartes
This is a God renouncing paradigm.
Followed through in reversal…
‘ I do not think, therefore I am not.’
No longer a person in the eyes of the fittest.
2.1 Health/Care proving is ‘imaging God’ whether knowingly or in ignorance.
2.2 to kill is to steal, to destroy an image of God, with the image of satan, whether knowingly or in ignorance.
2.3 To whom do we belong? In whose image are we made?
2.4 To kill one in the image of God, in its delegated dominion is a vicarious emblematic killing of God.
2.5 God is dead and we have killed him. Nietzsche’s atheistic nihilism is placarded in the market place of society.
2.6 We are masters of our own destiny, sovereign over all, life, death, morality, ethics, except for fate or chance and maybe, for now, genetics, which can be corrected or killed by human fiat.
2.6 we worship our maker for ‘this’, we are our god in Self made image.
Has anyone mentioned the issue of someone who fears getting dementia giving advance permission or instructions for their life to be ended if they are “not the same person any more”: in that case, who are they? This new person with dementia may be enjoying life in their way, and hasn’t given permission.
I don’t see any reason why a Christian can’t use the argument that our life belongs to God, and we’re not entitled to end it prematurely. In the Pilgrim’s Progress, mentioned above in another context, Giant Despair tempts Hopeful and Christian to commit suicide when they’re his prisoners. They regard suicide as worse than murder (I can’t remember the exact argument) and happily Hopeful keeps Christian alive.
Regarding some of your points-
Sanctity of life – I notice there is no mention of the death penalty. At one time God COMMANDED one set of human beings to end the life of individuals if they committed certain ‘crimes’. How does the sanctity of life play into that? The death penalty continues in a number of countries to this day. He also commanded the destruction of life of whole peoples, including children. Again, sanctity of life? Note it is not God who is directly ending the life of humans but other humans ending their life.
Redemptive value of suffering – up to a point. Though I am not sure how long that value lasts for someone who, for example, suffered a cardiac arrest in their 40s and is confined to bed with minimal ability to communicate, year after year. Technology is keeping them alive, but is that for their sake or their family’s? As for Jesus’ suffering and terrible death, I see no connection. His was a unique death, causing the redemption of others. Noone else has been ‘made sin’! Let’s not pretend those who suffer are somehow similar to Jesus.
Violation of commandment against killing – already broken by the death penalty, instituted by God.
Nature of compassion – I think it is compassionate to want to end the suffering of a loved one if there is no hope of that suffering ending. Im not interested in what the Latin means. One of the reasons why many Christians reject the idea of eternal conscious suffering for the ‘unsaved’ is precisely because they believe that contradicts the character of God.
Slippery slope – I agree this is a danger, and that it has happened in other countries such as the Netherlands and Canada. However I understand that that is not the case in other jurisdictions. So whilst it is possible, it is not inevitable, and shouldnt be used as an argument against a proposed law that is quite specific.
The role of hope – perhaps but I would be surprised, for example, if a significant number of people suffering with a terminal illness who are atheists turn to God and Jesus. I am also not convinced there is ‘meaning’ in continued suffering.
Jesus being an example of being a burden on others – I find this an odd argument. Assuming He lived to be into his 30s, he lived nearly all of that as an independent human being just like others at the time. Probably an apprentice then self-employed. The only time he became ‘dependent’ was during his ministry, and that was financial more than anything. If anything his disciples were a burden to him. Not quite the same as someone bedridden and in pain for a long time with no end in sight!
Just my thoughts.
Hi PC1,
Couple of tentative thoughts:
Re your first and third paragraphs – am sure someone will correct me but isn’t the commandment prohibiting the taking of *innocent* life? If so I’m not sure the death penalty would link in here.
I’m with you on suffering – I don’t think it’s redemptive. A person may well reflect on an experience of pain or suffering and come to see that they grew through it – but that absolutely does not warrant any of us allowing *others* to suffer pain, or suggesting they should, for that reason. (Didn’t someone dub that idea Outward Bound theology?).
Slippery slope: a problem here for me is that with some arguments for assisted dying, widening of scope is part of their logic. It’s not uncommon to hear voices saying the law must change in order to relieve unbearable suffering. But if unbearable suffering is the key criterion, why should the law change restrict itself to the terminally ill? Others without a terminal diagnosis may also suffer unbearably – surely on the same logic the law would have to be widened? If this is valid then it’s more a likelihood than a slippery slope?
In friendship, Blair
Thanks, Ian.
Your experience illustrates the dilemma faced by any Christian who wants to contribute to this (and many other) debates. Any argument which starts from a Christian premise is likely to be dismissed precisely because it does so, since under the secular humanist rules which now govern our political discourse it is assumed to be based on a ‘subjective’ faith, and so deemed inadmissible or even coercive (“Why should I be dictated to by your faith?”). Recognising this, you (and similarly ++Justin) instinctively reached for the more pragmatic arguments which have more hope of carrying some weight. But when such arguments are used by those who are known to be Christians (and especially clergy) they are likely to be assumed to be fundamentally dishonest – merely attempts to justify a position which has been reached on other grounds – and so dismissed on that basis.
And in this way secular humanism, which claims to be objective and neutral (while being blind to its own faith presuppositions), effectively silences and disenfranchises anyone who has an explicit faith.
You spend most time on the ‘slippery slope’ argument, but I would count that as pragmatic rather than distinctively Christian, since (as you say) the considerations you explore are true for everyone, not just Christians – though it is perhaps somewhat heightened by a recognition of our fallenness, and arguments such as Jonathan Rowlands’ give it an added sharpness for Christians. As you point out, there is no middle ground, and allowing assisted suicide (to call it ‘assisted dying’ is a misleading euphemism, as Jonathan Tame points out at https://the-relationist.net/2024/10/the-relational-consequences-of-assisted-dying/ ) would signal that as a society we now think that there *are* some lives which are not worth living and therefore do not need protecting. That is why so many disabled people are so opposed to a change in the law, and the tension between such a position and the assumptions of international human rights law illustrates the inherent contradictions in secular humanism.
Your final point is actually the strongest, precisely because it challenges (from the perspective of Christian theology) the presuppositions of the proponents of change: that we are autonomous individuals, whose free choices have no effect on – and therefore should not be constrained by – others. But I think you can also make a distinctively Christian case for what I have called the ‘pragmatic’ arguments. What you describe as ‘the sanctity of life’ is really a theological shorthand for all that God’s Word teaches me about how I should regard the lives of my fellow human creatures. As a Christian, I do indeed seek to follow that teaching, and that is what most fundamentally leads me to oppose assisted suicide. But because I believe that God is good, and wise, and gives us his Word for our own benefit, I also believe that bad consequences will flow from any decision to ignore its teaching. The pragmatic arguments then become an attempt to discern in advance what some of those consequences might be, and the fact that they can also be made by – and carry weight with – those who are not Christians confirms my belief about the value of paying heed to God’s Word. In that way, as Christians, we can be honest about our starting point while still presenting arguments which carry weight in an unbelieving society, and are subtly evangelistic (or at least apologetic) to boot.
Given that Christ’s atonement alone is redemptive, suffering in general is not redemptive whereas his suffering was. He did not just die on our behalf an untimely death; he died an agonising death. Moreover, he accepted it as the will of the Father. He had to drink the cup. Like many others, at times I have also had a bitter cup to drink, and his example encourages me to accept what I cannot alter.
Writing in the context of persecution both Paul and Peter indicated that it was possible, in fact, to share Christ’s sufferings (Phil 3:10, 1 Pet 4:13, Col 1:14, prob. 2 Cor 1:5f).
Suffering is part of the human condition, and thus far should be seen as part of what God willed for us as human beings. It is therefore not meaningless, even though we do not see the meaning.
How we respond to suffering matters. In our effete mollycoddled atheistic culture we feel we have somehow a right to be free of suffering. When suffering comes, that view makes it all the harder to deal with. On the one hand we should accept that suffering is part of what God willed for humanity, however difficult it may be to understand; on the other, we are still right to try to alleviate suffering when it comes. But the instinct is not an absolute. Sometimes life requires us to choose suffering as the unavoidable cost of doing what is right.
Job suffered terribly and did not understand why he was the victim of such misfortune; the lack of understanding made the darkness only darker. And yes, he wanted to die. But at no time, I think, did he express the thought that he should proactively take his own life. “Shall we receive good from God, and not receive evil?” God set him a supreme challenge, and, albeit protesting, he met the challenge. He refused to curse God, and on the other hand refused to accept as the explanation for his suffering that he had sinned. In the end God commended him and blessed his latter days, more than his beginning.
In the life to come there will be no suffering. That is our hope, as it was Job’s. And that faith and trust in God is ennobling.
In the meantime, we do well to ‘rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance’ (Rom 5:3). For the moment it is painful; ‘later it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness’ (Heb 12:11). We hold on to God.