This summer is seeing a further concerted drive to change the law on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Its proponents, particularly the vociferous group, Dying in Dignity (DID), formerly called the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, are ceaselessly active in recruiting new celebrities to their cause. Harnessing the power of the media to raise their profile, they bring maximum pressure on Parliament to achieve the ultimate goal of legalisation.
Previous attempts include Lord Joffe’s Bill of 2006 and Lord Falconer’s amendment of 2009 in the Westminster Parliament, and Margo MacDonald’s Bill of 2010 in the Scottish Parliament. The failure of these attempts has done nothing to deter the evil aspirations of supporters. Indeed, if anything, they are all the more determined and are now entering realms which even they would formerly have considered off-limits.
A recent press release from Fiona Godlee, Editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), has caused considerable anxiety amongst Christians and others who value the sanctity of human life. Historically the journal has been considered the mouthpiece of the medical profession in Britain. So when we read, “BMJ supports call for medical bodies to stop opposing assisted dying”, alarm bells begin to ring. It appears that an article in the journal by Professor Raymond Tallis, chairman of the body Health Care Professionals for Assisted Dying (HPAD), challenged the British Medical Association (BMA) to change its traditional stance on assisted suicide from “opposition” to “studied neutrality”. The BMA has always opposed assisted suicide, and to adopt this new position would preclude it from even entering the debate. HPAD has strong links to DID; so it is not hard to see where Prof Tallis is coming from.
In supporting Prof Tallis, Dr Godlee cites a poll carried out by DID claiming that 62% of doctors support the change to neutrality. Now that is quite an impressive figure, and very sad if it were true; however, Dr Peter Saunders from the Christian Medical Fellowship has raised doubts over the framing of the questions in the poll. Dr Godlee, though, concludes, “A change in the law [on assisted suicide] with all the necessary safeguards is an almost inevitable consequence of the societal move towards greater individual autonomy and patient choice”. Her position is certainly not neutral.
But what about God’s holy law, which states categorically, “Thou shalt not kill”? It is largely ignored. Instead “greater individual autonomy and patient choice” are the criteria. Society will decide and frame laws on a subjective, humanistic basis. Man will choose his own destiny. How solemn when people are prematurely ushering themselves and others into eternity to face their Maker, the Judge of all the earth!
Prof Tallis’ and Dr Godlee’s timing was certainly not accidental. The BMA’s annual conference took place at the end of June and the plan would be to sway the opinion of the delegates by their comments. Mercifully, the BMA voted to continue its opposition to assisted suicide after debating Raymond Tallis’ motion. One wonders, though, what evil seeds may have been sown and what thorns and briars may yet grow up, especially among younger BMA members, who have been exposed to a more secular culture. Hopefully, many share the conviction of Dr Dia Samuel, who stated: “We must question what as doctors we stand for. I simply stand for looking after my patients and providing high-quality care. I do not consider the killing of patients, whatever the reason, justified. That is murder and I cannot commit that offence.”
The public is undoubtedly being drip fed a diet of emotive cases such as that of Mr Tony Nicklinson. Channel 4 devoted a half-hour documentary to this case, and The Times a double-page spread entitled, “Right to Die”. He has a form of Locked-in Syndrome, following a stroke seven years ago and is seeking a legal way to end his life. Complex legal arguments are being used, such as Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which claims respect for private and family life. He also pleads the common law of necessity for being relieved from his suffering. (Necessity can be used to justify the death of one conjoined twin, for example, if it means the other can live.) He can do virtually nothing for himself and one cannot but feel the deepest sympathy for him; however, God’s law transcends all those considerations. People are to be cared for, not murdered by themselves or others.
Iona Heath, President of the Royal College of General Practitioners comments on the “burgeoning enthusiasm” for assisted dying: “A malign government coming into power, with legislation supporting assisted dying already in place, is a deeply disturbing prospect. As individuals, very few of us act always in the interests of others.” Already we fear that the weak and vulnerable are sometimes secretly victimised, even although the law forbids it. We need to pray and to be vigilant. Subtle people are moulding the thinking of the gullible. Society has lost its moorings. All of us as sinners are ready to listen to the devil (a murderer from the beginning). How easily we are duped by his plausible arguments! “So I returned and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter” (Ecc 4:1).
However the Lord reigns and, while we major on the solemn and serious issues of the taking away of human life, we are not to forget our own precious souls. If we neglect them, we too are guilty, spiritually, of self-murder. The Saviour says, “All that hate Me love death” (Prov 8:36). KHM
Council Prayers Under Attack Again
Those who oppose the offering of prayer at the beginning of local government meetings are on the warpath again. In February a judge in England ruled that prayers that were part of the meeting were not lawful – but he did accept that there could be prayer if it was not part of the meeting. Soon afterwards, however, the Minister responsible for local government signed a parliamentary order permitting councils in England to begin their meetings with prayer.
Since then the leader of West Lindsey District Council in Lincolnshire said that he wishes to see prayers completely abolished from council meetings because, he claims, they discriminate against those without faith. He is totally against any and all religious utterances in a public place on taxpayers’ money and will heartily cheer when they cease.
Edinburgh City Council has gone further. It has decided to stop having prayer at the commencement of its meetings. Instead, before meetings there will be a 10-minute “pause for reflection”, which “will be delivered by representatives from a wide variety of civic and community interests, including faith and belief groups, civic institutions and community and voluntary sector organisations”. Only after this will the meeting begin.
To some there will be no significant difference between prayer during the commencement of the council meeting and the “pause for reflection” before it begins, but the change is intended to push out any official acknowledgement of God from the business of the Council.
The Lord Provost has declared, “Scotland’s capital is a place of tolerance, fairness and diversity and I am more than proud to stand as first citizen in such a forward-looking city”. The Council has reason to be ashamed rather than proud because of the backward step it has taken. They may think they are giving God a place (albeit a peripheral one) but they are in fact deliberately dismissing Him from their proceedings, officially distancing themselves from Him. How like those who say to God: “Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways”, and whose question is, “What is the Almighty, that we should serve Him? And what profit should we have, if we pray unto Him? (Job 21:14,15).
May our councils throughout the country be brought to heed the word that was given to another in authority, “The Lord is with you, while ye be with Him; and if ye seek Him, He will be found of you; but if ye forsake Him, He will forsake you” (2 Chr 15:2). NMR
St George’s Tron Leaves the Church of Scotland
On June 11, the congregation of St George’s Tron in Glasgow voted to leave the Church of Scotland as a consequence of General Assembly decisions favouring the admission of homosexual ministers. The congregation is said to number more than 500 people. The future of the building, of the debt owed by the congregation to the Church of Scotland building fund, and of the funds “illegally withheld” by the congregation over the last few years remain to be decided. Trinity Church in Aberdeen – whose members formerly attended High Hilton Church of Scotland – has now joined the International Presbyterian Church, and it could be that St George’s Tron will follow. The International Presbyterian Church was founded in 1954 by Francis Schaeffer. It appears to be generally orthodox in doctrine but we doubt that it holds the Establishment Principle. It also appears to be unsympathetic to the Authorised Version of the Bible. DWBS
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of England and Wales
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church of England and Wales is marking 25 years of existence. It now has 13 UK congregations with 13 ministers, and another congregation and minister in Sweden. The denomination is relatively conservative, and has taken a strong stand against abortion and homosexual marriage. It has numerous links with American Presbyterianism but has not yielded to that craze for “Americanisation” which has been wreaking such havoc in the Free Church of Scotland. Pictures in the denominational prayer-letter show that very few of the women wear a head-covering in public worship. We do query the prayer-letter’s wisdom in mentioning by name people who have recently shown spiritual concern; at the very least, it could lead to embarrassment for those concerned. DWBS