Royal College of Physicians and Assisted Dying
Following on from the British Medical Association’s announcement of guidelines advocating withdrawal of food and hydration from patients who are not imminently dying, it is alarming now to hear that The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) appears to be going down a similar route. At a meeting of its council it has decided – before consulting its wider membership – to take up a neutral position as to whether the law on assisted dying should be changed. Until now it has always strongly opposed any change in this law, a position which has consistently been backed by a majority of its members.
In its latest move, the College has adopted the new position first and, strangely, it is going to ballot its members afterwards. Even stranger – and some would say unconstitutional – is the announcement that a two-thirds majority would be required to overturn the new position. Critics say that the ballot has been framed to make the neutral result inevitable, and a former chair of the RCP’s ethics committee, warns that the ballot “is manifestly unreasonable”. The RCP has been threatened with a judicial review over its handling of the issue but it began the consultation process in February, with results expected later in the spring. Over 1800 doctors have signed a letter opposing the proposed shift to this neutral position.
In 2014 – the last time the RCP consulted its 35 000 members – over 58% said they “would not be prepared to participate actively in assisted dying”, while over 62% stated, “We believe that, with improvements in palliative care, good clinical care can be provided within existing legislation, and that patients can die with dignity. A change in legislation is not needed.” When asked what position the RCP should take if the law did change to permit assisted dying, 44% said that the RCP should oppose it, while 31% said it should be neutral, and 25% said that the RCP should support a change.
These are solemn times when some of those organisations, which were once renowned for striving to uphold the sanctity and dignity of human life, are now moving in the opposite direction. Mercifully, as yet, assisted dying is illegal in the UK, and doctors still face jail sentences of up to 14 years if convicted. Many medical professionals are strongly opposed to a change in the law, as are the major disability rights groups in Britain, such as Disability Rights UK and SCOPE. They see, as one of them has stated, that “good palliative and clinical care mean that patients can be properly cared for right up to death. This should be the priority in terms of policy. Persistent requests for euthanasia are extremely rare when people are well cared for.” Yet, when prominent groups such as the RCP weaken their stance, it can seriously
influence those in the medical profession who do not have strong Christian values. This would be yet another step down the secular humanist road.
As has often been argued, if euthanasia is legalised, it would seriously affect the doctor-patient relationship. The doctor may even try to show that death is in the best interests of the patient. If so, how could doctors be trusted to do everything possible to protect patients’ lives? The cruel legalising of euthanasia would also increase pressure on the weak and vulnerable to believe that they are a burden on their families and that they have a duty to die. Protective laws are vital, especially in the present secular culture. However, the real argument is based on the relationship of man, as a sinner, to God, his Creator. A report accurately states, “Ultimately, human life is sacred . . . regardless of any disability or how ill or incapable we are or have become. No one has the right to end a person’s life, and the law should stand as a protection for all people in society.” Yes, and the law should reflect God’s holy law, which states, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13). KHM
The Lion of Sin
A man in the Czech Republic has just been killed by one of the two illegal “pet” lions which he kept in his back garden. His badly mauled body was found in the enclosure and the lions were shot dead by the police. An internet search shows a surprising number of other people who have been killed or severely injured by “tame” lions in recent years, including professional zoo-handlers and lion-tamers.
There is a well-known story in Paul White’s Jungle Doctor series about an African who finds an attractive orphaned baby leopard which he insists on keeping to adulthood, against the dire warnings of the other villagers, until one day it kills his son and himself. Other people keep poisonous snakes or spiders, and these sometimes escape through tiny holes in their tanks and cages, endangering their owners and their families. The spiritual application of these stories is obvious: the dangerous animal kept as a pet is sin, and its deadly character and strength and subtlety remain, no matter how long it may appear to be harmless.
Many of the Lord’s people have a strong lion in their bosom – whether anger, or lust, or love of alcohol, or gambling, or covetousness, or bad language, or whatever – which they long to be rid of, but the Lord leaves it there for wise and holy purposes. They are to starve it and avoid it and hate it and seek its destruction, and not to pamper it and visit it and play with it. These stories of foolish or careless people with their dangerous pets are a reminder to them of their own spiritual danger.
When someone other than the owner is killed or injured by a dangerous pet, it reminds us, too, that our sins may have fatal effects on others – as, for
example, a bad witness before our children may drive them away from Christ – even though we ourselves repent and are restored. Or perhaps we can identify the dead or injured child with some precious aspect of the Christian life, as closeness to Christ; and though we ourselves survive, yet this may be lost for months or years, as David lost “the joy of Thy salvation” (Ps 51:12).
DWBS
The Separation in 1893
The Free Church Witness for March 2019, published by the Free Church (Continuing), contains the second of four articles by Rev Alasdair J Macleod on the Free Church of Scotland. This is a good article, until it begins to deal with the aftermath of the passing of the Declaratory Act in 1892.
The writer states, “There was extensive dissent and protest throughout the Church against the Act. One minister went further, and tabled a protest in the form of separation. Another minister joined him, and some thousands of people, chiefly in the Highlands, formed the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Others . . . remained in the [Free] Church under protest. The point is important: no one has an automatic right to separate when they choose.”
Without going into the details of the effects of a protest in a Church court, it is necessary to stress the necessity for separation in 1893, for, however many attempts have been made to minimise the effects of the 1892 Declaratory Act, it did change the constitution of the Free Church. Mr Macleod claims that “the Act placed no obligation upon any man. You did not have to agree with it . . . .” But the Act made it impossible for those who remained in the Free Church to launch a successful prosecution against any of her ministers who was guilty of doctrinal failures. All such ministers had to do was to claim, under the Declaratory Act, that their errors did “not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith” and the prosecution must fail.
The article is followed by a quotation from Charles Hodge, beginning, “Schism is separation from the Church without adequate cause”. This is true. But the separation in 1893 certainly did have adequate cause: the constitution of the Free Church was then drastically changed. The question may be asked: Did the separation in 2000 which led to the formation of the FCC have adequate cause in the absence of a change in the constitution of the present Free Church at that point in time?