Replies

THE NOTION OF A RIGHT TO A ‘GOOD DEATH’ UNDERMINES SOCIETY
T | T | T | T
BY ARCHBISHOP VINCENT NICHOLS

We have seen a significant defeat in Parliament for proposals to legalise assisted suicides, and

learnt of the joint suicides at the Dignitas apartment in Switzerland of the eminent conductor Sir Edward Downes, and his wife, Lady Downes. While there

are many ethical, medical and legal issues surrounding assisted suicide, at its heart lies the notion that we have an absolute

moral entitlement to have whatever kind of death we choose. This is surely the triumph of the philosophy that proclaims

individual rights above all other considerations and the relativist insistence that what is good is a matter of personal judgment.
The consequences of this attitude

lie at the root of the weakening of social structures, including the decline of the family as the core unit, the rise of anti-social

behaviour, the pursuit of profit at all cost and the increasing intolerance of non-materialist, philosophical or ethical views. It

can be summarised as the age of convenience; the pursuit of what we want despite its cost and impact on others.

It is, perhaps, in matters of life and death that these issues stand

out most starkly. Are we really masters of our destiny? Is human life just something we produce, whether by sexual intercourse or

in a laboratory, and ultimately to be created, aborted or disposed of at will? Are the senses of wonder at new-born life, or of duty

towards the weak in sickness and old age, misguiding instincts that we must overcome if they conflict with our own convenience?

Consequently, are we losing the capacity and skills to care for others, especially the vulnerable elderly?

Once life is reduced to the status of a product, the logical step is

to see its creation and disposal in terms of quality control. This raises important questions: Who is to decide? What value is to be put

on suffering that is borne with patience, or on enduring love and care for those in distress and pain?

If my life has no objective value, then why should anyone else care for it? The notion of an absolute right to choose “a good death” may

sound libertarian but it undermines society’s commitment to support fellow members in adversity. And it encourages the abandonment of the ailing.

Once life is entirely subject to human decision in its beginnings and endings, then the horizon of hope is dramatically reduced. I

may hope to be the agent of that decision. But the likelihood is that someone else will either take it for me, or guide me towards

taking it. Once the coin of sovereignty over death has been minted, then it will be claimed by not a few.

Better by far to acknowledge the spiritual dimension of every human being; the capacity to go beyond the present, to search for and to

cherish self-giving in love and to recognise that our better selves are formed and nurtured in a community, and not always one of

our own choosing. This spiritual dimension enables us to recognise, in a way not visible to technological eyes, every human

life as a gift to be cherished from its beginnings to its natural end. When we do this, we grow in our humanity, rather than lose it.

Dying is the most important step a person takes, for it is a step towards the ultimate fulfilment of our innate spiritual nature, our capacity to know God, to know the

fullness of the mystery of all things. We have been created with this capacity and our best guide for living is to do nothing to

dent, pervert or deaden it. The poet Lucretius said that “life is given to no one as freehold, we all hold it on leasehold”.

Accepting that life is a gift is a good start. Sadly these centuries-old truths about the nature of humanity are no longer

common currency. But we can surely all of us recognise, whether we approach our lives with or without a transcendental faith, the

serious ethical and social dangers to which the doctrine of unfettered personal autonomy is leading us.

The Most Rev Vincent Nichols is Archbishop of Westminste