Christian churches have already lost battles to stop the legalisation of homosexuality, the introduction of same sex marriages, more liberal abortion laws, and the introduction of safe access zones at abortion clinics.
Likewise, they face a tough uphill fight to combat the extension of Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) across all schools in Northern Ireland.
Ireland, north and south, used to have the reputation where church and state were fused together in the running of political and social affairs. But this is a very different island compared to the days of Eamon de Valera in the South, and James Craig in the North.
Put bluntly, the churches will need a united front with a strongly pro-active campaign to lobby politicians if they are to prevent assisted dying being legalised throughout the island. Clerics have a moral and Biblical duty to mobilise their flocks against any introduction of assisted dying.
Loose this battle, and the relevance of the churches will be radically diminished. There is also the very real danger the assisted dying debate among the churches will become yet another Orange and Green argument.
Sinn Féin and the SDLP both say they would consider supporting a change to the law to allow assisted dying for people with a terminal illness. Could this see a boost for the pro-life republican party, Aontu; a movement founded by disillusioned Sinn Fein supporters unhappy with the latter’s support for abortion?
Within the Unionist community, both the DUP and TUV would oppose assisted dying, as would the so-called evangelical wing of the UUP.
Sinn Fein and the SDLP have make it clear there would need to be safeguards in place to ensure any new laws were not abused.
While assisted dying is currently illegal in Northern Ireland, there are moves in the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, to bring in new legislation on the issue.
A bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally-ill people in Scotland was introduced at Holyrood last month.
Christians need to hammer home the point that when it comes to the subject of death, it is God who decides when a person dies and enters eternity.
Surely with the developments in science and medicine over the decades, better pain relief drugs have been developed in terms of end of life care.
Many Christians believe passionately in the power of prayer and divine healing. But to legalise assisted dying must be branded for what it truly is - people playing God.
Those who advocate assisted dying may point all they want to the many safeguards they claim will be put in place, but ultimately a human has to take the decision to end someone’s suffering.
For Christians to simply roll over and accept assisted dying is to Biblically bin the concept of divine healing. Of course, supporters of assisted dying may argue - what about the folk that God does not heal and end up dying?
Some folk may even argue the point - what is the difference between assisted dying and capital punishment? The end result is the same; the death of an individual.
However, the real danger with assisted dying is that a decision is taken once a diagnosis of a potentially fatal illness is made before that person deteriorates into becoming terminally-ill.
In spite of all the so-called safeguards, checks and balances which supporters of assisted dying may claim will be put in place, at some point someone will suggest the use of assisted dying could be applied to physically and mentally handicapped people based on their quality of life.
If that situation should ever occur, society would be no better than the Nazis who butchered millions in their death camps during the Hitler era.
Another problem for the churches in opposing assisted dying is that many denominations are so busy bickering about pedantic issues, such as music at worship, translations of the Bible, women’s fashion in church, that they will miss the big picture.
Similarly, some denominations may not want to work with other churches for the simple reason they view such co-operation as some form of ecumenism and don’t want to be branded by militant fundamentalists as being part of the ecumenical movement.
One thing is certain; if the churches lose this battle on preventing assisted dying laws being introduced across the island, Christian denominations will also see what influence they still have radically reduced to the point where politicians simply ignore the views of the churches.
If that situation becomes a reality, the churches have only themselves to blame. Like it or not, the churches must form a united front on stopping any potential assisted dying laws.
 |
| Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. |
Christians should be allowed to make their own choices.
ReplyDeleteThey should not be allowed to make any for me.
Christians should be free to practice their religious faith on themselves.
They should not be free to practice it on me.
At every turn, given every chance to show compassion the religiously inflicted show the callousness that underpins their virtue signaling.
ReplyDeleteIf the Dr Who Society want to believe in Daleks with supernatural power, they are free to do so. No reason for those of not not in the Dr Who Society to believe it or be bound by it. Same with Biblical Christians - they should do their own thing and the rest of us can do ours.
DeleteThere is an important discussion to be had around end of life. But it has to be on secular ground where everybody can participate and books about Dr Who or Yahweh are pretty much immaterial.
They are not interested in anyone's opinion but their own, and believe that somehow they have a right to dictate what they believe upon others. I've no issue with personal faith but they should keep it just that.
DeleteI'm setting John outside this discussion because he does listen to other opinions.
DeleteBut you do identify a problem with many of them. They simply cannot abide by others holding a different opinion to the religious opinion they have. They feel they can choose for you and that you can't choose for yourself.
Well as John pointed out in his second paragraph any of what we would consider progression under a civilised society was considered a battle to be fought against by the churches of his branch of Abrahamic legend. I'll give him his due in that he rightly points out they lost.
DeleteThey have lost them all Steve. And they will lose this one much like they lost the abortion one and the marriage equality one. I think there is a knock on effect for them from issues where they argue irrationality and obscurantism to the point of wanting their nonsense taught in the science class - the earth being six thousand years old and evolution not having happened. So in areas where they have concerns that secularists might share they lose it because their case is contaminated by their absurdity on other matters.
DeleteReligion or no religion it shouldn't matter I.e putting the power to put someone down into corrupt hands should be a concern for everyone. The same 'experts' that instructed care homes and hospitals to place DNR on residents and patients during 'covid' will be the same 'experts' all over any new powers presented to them.
ReplyDeleteThat has merit as a secular argument. It leaves us in the position of exercising the right to choose. For those who feel doctors are part of some power grid with an oppressive/disciplinary function (a Foucault-type perspective) and choose not to avail of the health services should be free to do so. Those who wish to avail of the service should have the same freedom to choose. Neither should have the right to choose for the other.
DeleteAnd what about the vulnerable people? You know the type in Canada for example were if you happen to be suffering chronic depression the option to avail of this grand service is there for you? You know the type of people a society claims they want to help and protect. Just like Christians shouldn't make decisions for us neither should Darwinists or any other cult.
ReplyDeleteNobody should make the decision for anybody else. I won't make it for you and you won't make it for me.
DeleteP.s if you think everybody in the medical industry is an Angel and Saint and has nothing but our best interests at heart then I sincerely hope you never get a rude awakening..........everyday it seems there's news of 'mistakes' and apologies from one sector or another in the medical business sector.
ReplyDeleteI totally support your right not to go to doctors. I will exercise my right to go.
DeleteWell speaking from a State which has voluntary assisted dying laws I can say Victoria in Australia probably has it right. The person needs to have an incurable disease which will lead to their death within 12 months, cause them unbearable pain, needs to be signed off by two independent doctors, they must be compos mentis and most importantly they must volunteer for it.
ReplyDeleteSeems pretty compassionate to me.
Queensland, if I recall has a similar system. I think that is where they use the black box. It is left in people's homes and they can access it with a code and take the substance at a point of their choosing. Many times the box goes back to the hospital because the terminally ill patient does not use it.
DeleteThe system you describe is very compassionate - compare that to the horribly painful deaths people underwent who believed in the Christian Science movement. The key principle in Victoria is choice. If they don't volunteer for it then they don't get it.
I hope we have it in Ireland before it is my time to go. Being able to ask for life ending medical assistance rather than botch it by DIY or live on in unbearable pain is the most compassionate way to approach the matter.
You fill your boots then.
ReplyDeleteAnd the vulnerable people? We'll let the 'experts' do away with them then? Very compassionate indeed.
ReplyDeleteThere has to be safeguards in place for vulnerable people. Advocates of the measure are not calling for some religious cult / Jim Jones mass suicide event. The expert decision maker in this matter is not the doctor but the person suffering. They should have their wishes respected. And that works both ways: If they don't want it, don't avail of it. But they should not get to tell anybody else that they can't avail of it. Seems the most compassionate way.
DeleteI think the decision making involves medical confirmation that the person's quality of life will not improve and is causing further suffering or deterioration. In the most notable English case the woman's husband was supporting his wife's decision, which means the next of kin are also part of the process.
DeleteThat is to the good.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is welcome that next of kin support the decision, they should never have the right to veto. My wife and children know what my wishes are and understand that it is my call not theirs. People must have the right to choose. A husband can no more decide for his wife what way she will manage her death than he can forbid her having an abortion. In these situations a choice is always made. The question is who has the right to make that choice? Not the bishop, not the partner, not the doctor, not the lawyer but the person who matters most - they who have the incurable and terminal illness.
The bishop can die screaming or wanking if he wishes. I prefer he die peacefully but the call is his. It is not his to tell me how I shall die.
No, next of kin have no veto power, it comes down to the wishes of the person -but it must be supported medically that their condition will not improve.
DeleteIts crucial that there be no power of veto. Imagine a situation where someone because of their religious belief could veto the decision of someone of a different religious belief or none. A religious believer telling someone they can't avail of end of life assistance is as bad as an atheist telling someone they must avail of it. The fairest and most compassionate way to progress is for people to decide for themselves and for no one else in accordance with their own conscience and belief.
ReplyDeleteEven if I was a believer the idea that people should be forced against their wishes to die in terrible agony would be repulsive.
Anthony.....
DeleteIts crucial that there be no power of veto. Imagine a situation where someone because of their religious belief could veto the decision of someone of a different religious belief or none.
Take religion out of the equation for 30 seconds. Didn't Brendan Hughes veto Sean McKenna's wish to take his hunger strike to the end?
When the awful moment arrived I kept my word to him. Having made that promise, to renege on it once Sean had reached a point where he was no longer capable of making a decision for himself, I would have been guilty of his murder. Whatever the strategic merits of Bernadette’s favoured option, they are vastly outweighed by ethical considerations.
in the 1981 hunger strike some mothers vetoed their son wishes.....Were they right or wrong? It's not always a religious question on the right to life.
AN END to the Long Kesh hunger-strikes appeared close last night when it became clear that the families of all six remaining hunger-strikers had given a commitment to seek medical intervention in the event of the prisoners falling into a coma or becoming incapable of making rational decisions.
Frankie - it is not just people of religious faith who have queries about the end of life assistance. The bishop was used for illustrative purposes. As a debating point It works better than say a teacher or lawyer. And all the more relevant given what John said in his piece about the churches having lost all the major battles in recent years, The point being teased out is that it is absurd for someone to have a veto over another's choices on the basis of a religious opinion. I am open to every argument against abortion or end of life assistance other than a religious one. Telling me that you think Dr Who might not approve is meaningless given that I am not in the Dr Who club.
DeleteDon't know how you got it wrong about Brendan - you have it back to front. Brendan was not using a veto over Sean's decision but was upholding Sean's decision once Sean was no longer in a position to execute it himself. Had he allowed Sean to die once he had undertaken not to let him die he would have been guilty of his murder.
While the hunger strike is not a strong analogy given that death was avoidable - in the situation John raises it is unavoidable - the right to choose should always lie with the person facing death - not the bishop, the lawyer, the doctor, the husband.
Imagine this scenario: I am dying from an incurable illness. I am hardly going to say 'the decision on whether I get end of life assistance must be Frankie's, not mine.' Now If I choose to do that and you agree to execute it for me, that's different. Because the choice lay with me.
There is always a choice here - who gets to make it is the question. I'll make it for me and you will make it for you. That is the best way to proceed. We should never give that choice to the doctors, the bishops, the far right, the lawyers.
Anyway, I don't imagine you being the type who is going to interfere much in what other people do with their lives.
The BBC has reported doctors knowingly used infected blood products on hundreds of children without consent for over 15 years in their interests in research......most of the guinea pigs are dead now. Another example of the upstanding morality of the 'experts' that will be granted the power to put people down.
ReplyDeleteBut you have the freedom to choose whether you use a doctor or not. I fully support your decision to boycott doctors if that is what you choose to do. Much as I support the right of others to use doctors.
Delete