Assisted Suicide and the Supreme Court
In June this year, the UK Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by campaigners to weaken the law on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Had the appeal succeeded, the door would have been fully opened for medical professionals to assist their patients to die legally; so, on the face of it, this failure is good news. However, comments by some of the Supreme Court judges suggest that this door may in fact be far from closed.
In 2012 Tony Nicklinson, who suffered a stroke causing paralysis from the neck down and locked-in syndrome, brought his case to the UK High Court. He considered his life as “dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable”, and asked the Court to rule that his doctors might be allowed to assist him to die at a time of his choosing, without fear of retribution. One of his contentions was that the present law on assisted suicide was incompatible with his “right to respect for private life” enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1998. The High Court refused his claim on the basis that it was up to Parliament, not the courts, to decide on whether the law should be changed. Significantly the Court’s ruling made no mention of God’s absolute rights over all His creatures. A devastated Nicklinson embarked on a course of starvation and died from pneumonia later that year.
In the subsequent Court of Appeal hearing, in summer 2013, Paul Lamb
applied to be substituted in place of Tony Nicklinson as well as making a case in his own right. Mr Lamb was involved in a car crash which left him completely immobile and he has been in a wheelchair for over 20 years. He described his life as “monotonous and undignified” and he remains in constant pain. He too wished to terminate his life at “the right time”. Tony Nicklinson’s widow Jane joined Paul Lamb in the appeal. This appeal was unanimously turned down, upholding the previous decision of the High Court. In December 2013, the appellants then took their case to the Supreme Court, over which nine judges presided.
The judges have now concluded their deliberations and have decided to dismiss the case on a majority of 7 to 2, but the qualifications behind the judgement raise serious issues. It appears that the Supreme Court came very near to declaring that the current law prohibiting assisted suicide was indeed incompatible with the “right to respect for private life”. Two judges, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr, argued for a firm declaration of incompatibility in this case. They claimed that, while the protection of vulnerable people could justify a general ban on assisted suicide, it was not sufficient for a total ban. They wanted to allow for exceptional cases such as Nicklinson’s and Lamb’s. Some of the remaining judges, including the Court’s president, Lord Neuberger, ruled that the suicide law “may well be incompatible”; in their opinion the matter should be sent to Parliament to “grapple with the issues”.
While we should thank God that the appeal failed, there seems to be a threat that, if the UK parliament will not amend the law on assisted suicide, the Supreme Court may well take a different view of a future case and give it the green light. Unlike the High Court, the majority of the Supreme Court believes it has the constitutional authority to make such a ruling.
Despite the appellants losing their case, they are not disheartened. Mrs Nicklinson said, “I am disappointed that we lost. But it is a very positive step. Parliament will have to discuss this.” Mr Lamb added, “I am very proud of myself; I know it is going to change”. Parliament has not yet capitulated to the constant pressure from proponents of assisted suicide, but we wonder how long this can be maintained especially when pressure seems to be coming from the highest court in the country, a court which should protect its citizens.
While we have deep sympathy for people in tragic situations we remember how godly Job conducted himself in his great trial. He too longed for death, feeling that his situation was intolerable. His bitter cry was, “O that Thou wouldest hide me in the grave” (Job 14:13). Even his wife called on him to “curse God and die” (Job 2:9); yet he was led to say, “All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come” (Job 14:14). Men in their
folly would usher themselves into eternity, but our duty is to wait and seek preparation, through the Saviour, for the Lord’s time. There is “a time to be born and a time to die” (Ecc 3:2). That is God’s time. He alone has the right to give life and to end it.
KHM
Sabbath-Breaking at Urquhart Castle
We regret that we are having to comment on the Free Church once again, this time in connection with Sabbath-breaking. The second ecumenical “Picnic and Praise” was held at Urquhart Castle on Loch Ness on the evening of Sabbath, June 22, involving the Free Church, the Episcopal Church, and the Church of Scotland. Last year we mentioned that one of the congregations had a woman minister; this year it is the Sabbath-breaking aspect of the event that is to the fore. The gathering was not described as a “service” but as an event, and the advertising on the Free Church website was in the following worldly terms: “Gates open 6.30 pm. Main event kicks off about 7.30 pm”.
The chief attraction at the event was the “Christian singer” Ian White, backed up by a local choir, and two young pipers playing a duet on the castle walls. The crowd came “from the Glen and surrounding areas, as well as those from slightly further afield across the Highlands”. In other words, people were forsaking the public evening worship of God and were coming to this event. Leaving aside other objections that there may have been to the event, why could it not have been held on another day of the week? The Sabbath is already required by God for His worship, and we are not free to arrange “events” on that day which take people away from public worship. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.”
DWBS