“With other faith leaders”
The archbishop of Canterbury has written a typically (typically for the office rather than the person – I have no idea what’s typical of Justin Welby the person, nor do I care) dishonest and bullying piece about an assisted dying bill that Parliament will be debating.
With other faith leaders, I have joined in writing to members of parliament, urging them to oppose Rob Marris’s assisted dying bill.
We have written, not in an attempt to push “the religious” viewpoint on others but because we are concerned that a change in the current law on assisted suicide would have detrimental effects both on individuals and on our society.
There’s the first dishonest bit right there – of course it’s an attempt to push “the religious” viewpoint on others. What the fuck else would it be? Notice that four words into his piece he tells us he and his fellow clerics are “leaders” – that’s very loaded, manipulative, dishonest language.
While some individual religious voices, including that of my distinguished predecessor, Lord Carey, have called for a change in the law, the faith leaders’ letter represents the considered opinion of our communities that have analysed, discussed and debated the issue over many years. Their response springs from philosophical and theological reflections as well as from a vast range of pastoral experience and a profound sense of compassion.
Bully bully bully, it’s all bullying. It’s all loaded language meant to shame and pressure everyone into agreeing with the nice pious compassionate man and his nice pious compassionate friends. “Religious voices”; “distinguished”; “faith leaders”; “our communities”; “theological reflections”; “vast range of pastoral experience”; “profound sense of compassion.” It’s eyewash, it’s flapdoodle; it’s bullshit.
What there is of the substance:
While it is not a crime in the UK for someone to take his or her own life, we recognise that it is a tragedy and we, rightly, do all that we can to prevent suicide.
Not always. If there are ways to help the person planning suicide such that suicide would no longer be desirable, we do all we can to do that. If there are no ways to help – that’s a different story. Clearly some people will still do all they can to interfere, but the claim the archbish is resisting is that they shouldn’t.
At present, we can show love, care and compassion to those who at all ages and stages of life are contemplating suicide. We can try to intervene, to support them to embrace life once more. We can do all in our power to surround those who are terminally ill with the best possible palliative care, including physical, emotional and spiritual support. We can redouble our efforts to alleviate suffering.
We can still do that, with assisted dying in place. Assisted dying would not prevent that. It’s not up to other people to decide what level of suffering anyone has to bear. If X says thank you for all your efforts but you can’t alleviate the suffering and I want to check out now, it’s not the job of “faith leaders” to bar the door.
Well, technically, it is their job. Moralists gotta moralize, bullies gotta bully, and grifters gotta grift.
More seriously, it always baffles me how “faith leaders” are always taken so seriously when they’re demonstrably out of step with their own constituencies on issues of self-determination. Hell, this goes back to the Donatists!
One of the things that I found very hard when I was still Roman Catholic was this insistence that since with the aid of medical science it is possible to keep people alive far longer than they would naturally live, we should do so regardless of the effect on the person’s quality of life. I thought that we were supposed to be keen to get to the afterlife?
And the first time that I suffered truly unendurable pain was when I realised that we shouldn’t be making decisions for other people.
Until very recently, historically, family doctors were expected to give their terminal patients all the best pain relief that they had available, even if that meant shortening their lives. No-one batted an eyelid, no-one did a post-mortem toxicology screen to look for high concentrations of opiates; if someone was dying of cancer, say, then that was what was put on the death certificate.
These days, thanks to the class warfare of the ‘war on drugs’, in many places it is nearly impossible to obtain even adequate pain relief, because some pen-pusher somewhere is terrified of dependency and crime. The ridiculous lengths my GP has to go through to get me my opioid patches – which bring the pain down to a level where I can function but which is still draining and seriously unpleasant – stops her seeking more efficient pain relief. I know that it is out there. I was prescribed Fentanyl in hospital, and I know it works. But the red tape surrounding it is dreadful.
I’m not an addict. Sometimes I give my body a rest from the opioids for several days. What makes me put them back on isn’t withdrawal (although the nausea isn’t pleasant, it’s no worse than the 24-hour ‘morning sickness’ I had in pregnancy) but the fact that I am in so much pain that all I can do is curl up in bed, crying and rocking.
When I get to that point with all the possible pain killers available being shovelled down my throat, you can bet that I’ll be asking someone to help me die. At that point, no amount of pontificating about ‘love, care and compassion’ is going to give me more life – it will be just stretching out my death in the cruelest possible manner. If we tortured our pets like that we’d be rightly prosecuted.
I don’t see why terminally ill people should be forced to suffer so someone else can feel holy.
[…] really deserves little more than the Mandy-Rice Davies response: Well, he would, wouldn’t he? As Ophelia Benson writes, it’s typically loaded language that at its heart is little more than “eyewash, flapdoodle and […]
[…] forthright atheist blogger Ophelia Benson goes further, seeing much of this language as a kind of emotional bullying. Although she and I have sometimes […]
[…] forthright atheist blogger Ophelia Benson goes further, seeing much of this language as a kind of emotional bullying. Although she and I have sometimes […]
[…] forthright atheist blogger Ophelia Benson goes further, seeing much of Welby’s rhetoric as a kind of emotional bullying. Although she and I have […]
Identifying as faith leaders automatically means it deserves dismissal as it can’t be an unbiased or enlightened view.
[…] forthright atheist blogger Ophelia Benson goes further, seeing much of Welby’s rhetoric as a kind of emotional bullying. Although she and I have […]
[…] forthright atheist blogger Ophelia Benson goes further, seeing much of Welby’s rhetoric as a kind of emotional bullying. Although she and I have […]