NEW

We Wish You a Merry Saturnalia: Northern Churchman

We Wish You a Merry Saturnalia? The Northern Churchman There is a familiar feel to this time of year. The Christmas advertising on television, the darker evenings, the Carol Services – and the inevitable scoffers who call the Christmas story a myth. Not ‘Once in Royal...

Mark Pickles: The Story of Two Trampolines

Gospel-Driven Anglicanism By the Revd Dr Mark Pickles The Story of the Two Trampolines:  A passage that is frequently referred to during times of great revival is Isaiah 64:1-3:  “Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at your...

Ten Thousand Bibles for London’s Children

TBS Auxiliary Meets Ten Thousand Bibles For London’s Children The Greater London Auxiliary of the Trinitarian Bible Society was delighted to report at its Annual Meeting held on 15 November that over 10,000 Bibles have been distributed to London schools since the...

Good News for Egypt’s Christians

Barnabas Fund Reports Good News for Egypt’s Christians The government of Egypt licensed 125 churches and church-affiliated buildings on 14 November. It is the 24th batch of approvals made since the government committee overseeing the licensing process started work in...

Church Society’s Response to MP Ben Bradshaw

Church Society’s Response to MP Ben Bradshaw In the aftermath of Desmond Tutu’s daughter being refused permission to preside at a funeral in a Church of England parish, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw told The Guardian that the “C of E must move swiftly to welcome lesbian...

Collins: Who’s Your Righteousness?

Who’s Your Righteousness? By the Revd Canon Chuck Collins Who’s your righteousness? "The Lord our Righteousness" was the sermon preached March 20, 1757 at St. Mary's Church in Oxford. It offended nearly everyone that day and William Romaine was invited to never preach...

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act of 1963

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act of 1963 Persons Against Whom Proceedings May be Instituted. Proceedings under this Measure may be instituted against an archbishop, any diocesan bishop or any suffragan bishop commissioned by a diocesan bishop or any other bishop or a...

Editorial: Joy to the World Cup

Editorial Joy to the World Cup The result of the 2022 FIFA World Cup is already in. And it appears the Church of England has lost. The latest advice from the Church of England’s Support Hub is for parishes to consider the timing of Christmas Carol Services to avoid...

Symes to Step Down from Anglican Mainstream Leadership

Symes to Step Down from Anglican Mainstream Leadership By Chris Sugden Andrew Symes is to stand down as Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream on January 1, 2023, after nearly ten years in post. Rev Symes, 56, who had earlier served with Crosslinks in South...

Retired Bishop Given Life Suspension

Retired Bishop Given Life Suspension By George Conger The former Bishop of Ramsbury has been suspended for life from the ordained ministry after he admitted to having sexually abused two women. The Daily Mail reported the Rt Rev. Peter Hullah had been the subject of...

Rowan Williams Writes the British Medical Journal About Assisted Dying

Rowan Williams Writes the British Medical Journal About Assisted Dying

It is rare that this publication finds itself in agreement with Baron Williams of Oystermouth, former Archbishop of Canterbury.  However, his Letter to the Editor of the British Medical Journal regarding his predecessor’s support of assisted dying, is not only worth reading but a welcome change.  

In the interest of public service, we reproduce the entire letter.

Dear Editor

The Parliamentary debate on assisted dying is about to be reopened. Public and professional opinion seems to have shifted somewhat since this was last considered in Parliament, and the support of some prominent religious figures has added a new element to the discussion as recent contributions to the BMJ (the article by Lord Carey and Rabbi Romain) show. But it is hard to see that any new facts have emerged in recent years that would justify the changes envisaged. The arguments remain essentially the same, and in a matter like this it is important to weigh them in their own right.

Some continue to say that the opponents of this change are deliberately condemning people to protracted physical and mental agony for the sake of the religious or moral convictions of a minority. In fact, no serious contributor to the debate believes that merely prolonging life at all costs is a good in itself, or that it is morally inadmissible to scale back medical intervention or to use procedures for pain relief that are known to have potentially life-shortening side effects. But two broader points need to be made clearly here.

The first is the plain fact that those resisting legal change include religious believers and unbelievers alike, as well as a large proportion of those most directly involved in end-of-life care and palliative medicine – i.e. those most immediately concerned with and responsible for the management of pain and extreme distress.

The second is that the actual arguments against a change in the law are routinely about its effect on patient-doctor trust, on attitudes to certain kinds of disease or disability, on the apportioning of resources in a strained care system and a good many other practical issues. Many – including myself – are indeed opposed on religious principle, but fully recognise that this alone is not a reason for maintaining the legal ban.

The concerns that continue to be expressed are about what we believe to be the unacceptably high price of a change in the law.

To summarise briefly:

– We have to be aware of the reality of pressure on seriously ill patients to take certain decisions – something which Kathryn Mannix’s 2017 book, With the End in Mind, reports and discusses in a non-partisan and unsensational way: pressure which may (very understandably) come from overstrained families as well as overstretched medical systems.

– We need to note that fear of such pressure within the medical system may discourage seriously ill patients from seeking appropriate medical help; the issues of doctor-patient trust involved are real.

– This country currently has an enviable record of progress in and provision for palliative care; will this survive in the world of overburdened budgets if there are less expensive options? This is emphatically not to suggest any cynicism in the proposals for change , but to recognise an undeniable reality in terms of the routine triage within the funding systems of health care.

– There are immensely complicated questions about how the law is to identify conditions that would ‘justify’ medical intervention that has the direct and intended consequence of ending life. The obvious risks in labelling certain conditions in this way are of alarmist messages to patients at large, and of pressure to claim greater prognostic certainty than is realistic. Many disability groups also have strong views on this set of problems. 

More could be said, and there are many questions about the effects of implementation in other jurisdictions that need fuller treatment. But these are still the considerations that persuade many to say ‘No’ to a legal change in the UK.

Rowan D Williams Retired academic, sometime Master, Magdalene College, Cambridge 

Previous

Next