C of E Bishops say church members should ‘welcome’ ‘married’ same-sex couples into the church community

‘Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle.’ Neither should they 'be denied access to the sacraments'.

This extraordinary statement is embedded deep within paragraph 18 in the ‘statement of Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage’ issued by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on behalf of the House of Bishops of the Church of England this week.

The document, however, also concludes (in bold) that the House of Bishops is not ‘willing for those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry’ (paragraph 27).

In addition it considers that ‘it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church's teaching in their lives’ (27).

However in the same breath it also says that ‘The Church of England has a long tradition of tolerating conscientious dissent and of seeking to avoid drawing lines too firmly’ (28).

So, in other words, laity who enter into same sex marriages (which must be outside the church as the church will not currently conduct marriage services for such couples) are to be ‘welcomed’ but clergy are to 'accept and minister the discipline of this Church and respect authority duly exercised within it' (28) by not conducting same sex marriages or entering into them themselves.

But it is not at all clear what will happen to those clergy who refuse to toe the line. Just how far will their 'conscientious dissent' be tolerated? Time will tell.

John Bingham, Social and Religious Affairs editor of the Daily Telegraph, who reviewed the document last week has called it a ‘masterclass in doublespeak, obfuscation and internal contradiction’.

The Christian blogger Cranmer has said that the document ‘is theologically bungling and spiritually vacuous’ and makes the obvious point that ‘it is not what Canon Law prohibits in theory but how the bishops handle disobedience in practice which will determine and define the Church's theology on same-sex marriage’.

It will surely only be a matter of time before some clergy begin to test this inconsistency by ‘marrying’ in a registry office and then turning up to minister at church or taking their challenge to the courts.

The future seems clear. Some members of the church will progressively push the boundaries and argue, in the interests of equality and consistency, that first clergy and ultimately Bishops should be granted the same degree of ‘conscentious dissent’ given to the laity. And it will be very difficult for the Bishops, having already made the concessions they have, to hold the line.

St Paul took a different view. He warns in his first letter to the Corinthians (6:9,10) that ‘participants in same-sex intercourse’ will not ‘inherit God’s Kingdom’.

He places these people in the same category as those who are ‘sexually immoral, worship false gods, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunks, abusive people, and swindlers’.

He urges the church in Corinth to deal with these cases itself and not to involve the courts and makes it very clear in the previous chapter (1 Corinthians 5) that those who claim to be believers (call themselves ‘brother’ or ‘sister’) and behave this way are to be expelled from the church.

If we think that this is implying that the church should not welcome sinners we have misunderstood Paul completely. He actually exhorts the church to ‘associate’ with those ‘in the outside world’ who are ‘sinners’ (5:9-12) and not to judge them.

After all this is what Jesus himself did and many of the Corinthian church members once participated in these practices themselves (6:11).

But this is not what the Church of England Bishops are saying. They are saying that those who call themselves believers and continue in these above activities should be ‘welcomed into the life of the worshipping community’ and 'should not be denied access to the sacraments' (baptism and communion).

This distinction between the way unbelievers and people who claim to be believers are to be treated is the crucial distinction.

Furthermore it highlights precisely how the Church of England no longer follows the Apostles’ teaching. 

Behind the headlines: information and misinformation in pregnancy counselling

The pro-abortion organisation, Education For Choice (EFC) which is a project within the sexual health charity, Brook, who themselves work closely with the Family Planning Association to promote abortion, has produced a new report based on its own mystery shopping of some independent pregnancy counselling centres, mainly linked to LIFE and Care Confidential. 

Their findings have been reported by the Daily Telegraph, with calls to clamp down on independent counselling clinics and talk of scandalous misinformation being given out.

Crisis pregnancy counselling must always be professional and evidence-based. The use of bad science and research is wrong. Counselling clinics must provide women with unbiased information so that they can make fully informed decisions about their options.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at what the EFC report claims, and who is behind it.

The Daily Telegraph news report highlights cases of poor practice (a grand total of two!), and ignores all counselling or centres where there is very good independent advice and counselling offered ie. the overwhelming majority.

The EFC Report states several times that counselling centres should be transparent about their ethos, aims and motivation, which no one would take issue with.

We should therefore ask the same of centres such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes International (MSI) and other abortion clinics who offer their own counselling, while relying for their funding and thus operation from tax-payer funded abortion provision! It would be appropriate to have rather more transparency here too. It would also be interesting to see the sort of literature that is available on alternative options from these clinics and to see what women are really told, or not told (I return to this point later).

In fact, in past blogs (here and here) I have revealed how abortion providers – namely BPAS and MSI - are strongly driven by financial motivations and see success in increasing the number of abortions that they perform. They have a combined income of about £150 million per year, much of it from tax revenues (which is considerably more income than independent counselling clinics who offer a free service to women). They have business plan objectives and targets to increase the number of abortions that they perform. They also provide ‘counselling’ so it would be interesting to see what the Telegraph found if it ever ‘mystery shopped’ these clinics (perhaps the paper might consider this).

What is therefore not explained in the all the media coverage today is that women who are referred to BPAS or MSI for an NHS-funded abortion are denied access to any other source of independent counselling. These organisations depend on their income from providing and selling abortion and are not the appropriate place to provide pre-abortion counselling to vulnerable women who need support.

My second concern is that the EFC report attacks (very few) counselling centres for (some of) the medical claims they are making.  So the Report itself counters these with a few claims of its own:

·   Post abortion syndrome is a bogus medical disorder;

·   It is misleading to claim abortion may lead to depression or trauma;

·   There is no link with abortion and breast cancer;

·   There are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent pre-term birth;

·   And it criticises centres that suggest adoption is a loving or brave option to take.

All these points are highly contentious and disputable.

First, the evidence on a link between abortion and mental health, breast cancer and pre-term birth is widely documented.

There are well established mental health problems after abortion. The largest, most comprehensive and systematic review into the mental health outcomes of induced abortion, by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges in 2011, found that abortion does not improve mental health outcomes for women with unplanned pregnancies and does not offer any greater protection from mental health problems. The Review also found that women who had mental health problems before abortion were at greater risk of mental health problems after abortion and that other factors are associated with increased rates of post-abortion mental health problems, such as a woman having a negative attitude towards abortions in general, being under pressure from her partner to have an abortion, or experiencing stressful life events.

Whilst the ‘jury remains out’ on the link between abortion and breast cancer the evidence certainly cannot be claimed to be non-existent as this new large meta-analysis shows. A total of 36 articles (two cohort studies and 34 case–control studies) covering 14 provinces in China were included in the review published just this month which concluded that induced abortion is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and that the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of abortions increases. Women at very least have a right to know that there is an ongoing debate.

There is a clear association between abortion and pre-term birth (see here too) which no serious authority now denies. In fact there are now 137 studies on the link including two well-designed meta-analyses from 2009. These show that after one abortion, risk for a future preterm birth before 37 weeks increases by 36 percent and risk for a future very preterm birth before 32 weeks increases by 64 percent. There are no meta-analyses that refute this association. The abortion-preterm birth link is settled science.

Second, informed consent for abortion should follow the principles accepted for any other treatment in the NHS. It is advised to inform the woman of any ‘material’ or ‘significant’ risks or unavoidable risks, even if small.

So if a woman is to be able to make an informed decision, she must be made aware of the medical opinion and research showing that abortion carries a possible breast cancer risk and an established preterm birth risk.

Third, a brief comment on the headline claim of the Telegraph, that abortion will make women child sex abusers. This was not actually stated or claimed by the woman being secretly filmed. 

Furthermore, this blog post here by one woman, Caroline Farrow, who has experienced the regret of an abortion and experienced a lack of any pre-abortion counselling or medical information from the abortion clinic she went to, comments directly on this headline claim, explaining exactly what was said, and why. Sometimes newspaper headlines distort and misrepresent the truth.

Fourth, helping women to consider the real alternatives of adoption and keeping the baby is simply enabling them to explore all options. There is currently only one baby adoption for every 2,235 abortions in Britain, a ratio seven times worse even than the US. With real choice and proper support for women this ratio could be vastly improved to the benefit of mothers, babies and childless couples.

Finally, every organisation that provides abortion counselling has an agenda of some sort or another, pro-life or pro-abortion. One cannot shut down organisations which are aiming to counsel women with crisis pregnancies simply because one or two are not providing what is deemed to be ‘acceptable’ medical interpretation, especially when that ‘evidence’ is disputed.

Taking this all from another perspective. Caroline Farrow puts it well when she concludes that:

‘The scandal is the attempt to deny that abortion can cause very real harm to women. The scandal is the attempt to close down debate on the harmful effects of abortion and deprive women of all the information they need.’

We need independent counselling clinics to be able to help women come to fully informed decisions about their next step and to know the risks, their options and their choices. Clinics must all provide women with accurate, unbiased, evidence-based information, away from the abortion clinic, with adequate unpressured time to make their decisions, which is what the majority of independent centres already freely offer.

It would be a tragedy if this kind of selective reporting by pro-abortion organisations were to prevent the good work that is being offered by the vast majority of independent centres.

This review was produced jointly with Philippa Taylor

Charles Simeon quizzes John Wesley on the tenets of Calvinism

I’ve just listened again today, during a long run on my day off after a fantastic CMF National Students' conference, to John Piper’s biography on Charles Simeon, ‘Brothers, We Must Not Mind a Little Suffering’ .

If you have not yet discovered Piper’s biographies then I heartily recommend them. They can all be downloaded free of charge from the Desiring God website and are great for car or train journeys, walks and runs. 

The following, extracted and adapted from Piper, is I hope a useful taster.

Charles Simeon (1759 – 1836) was an English evangelical clergyman who lived through the American Revolution, the French Revolution and not quite into the decade of the telegraph and the railroad.

Jonathan Edwards, the major figure of the Great Awakening in the US, died the year before Simeon was born but the Wesleys and Whitefield were still alive, and so the Methodist awakening was in full swing.

In his 54 years at Trinity Church, Cambrdige, Simeon became a powerful force for evangelicalism in the Church of England. His position at the university, with his constant influence on students preparing for the ministry, made him a great recruiter of young evangelicals for pulpits around the land. But not only around the land. He became the trusted advisor of the East India Company, and recommended most of the men who went out as chaplains, which is the way Anglicans could be missionaries to the East in those days.

Simeon had a great heart for missions. He was the spiritual father of the great Henry Martyn. He was the key spiritual influence in the founding of the Church Missionary Society, and was zealous in his labours for the British and Foreign Bible Society and the Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews. In fact, on his death bed he was dictating a message to be given to the Society about his deep humiliation that the church has not done more to gather in the Jewish people.

Probably most of all, Simeon exerted his influence through sustained Biblical preaching year after year. This was the central labour of his life. He lived to place into the hands of King William the Fourth in 1833 the completed 21 volumes of his collected sermons.

In this sermon Piper reports on a debate between Simeon and John Wesley on the subject of Calvinism.

Simeon did not want to be labelled a Calvinist or an Arminian. He wanted to be biblical through and through and give every text its due proportion, whether it sounded Arminian as it stands or Calvinistic. But he was known justifiably as an evangelical Calvinist and was uninhibited in his affirmation of what we would call ‘the doctrines of grace’.

However he had little sympathy for uncharitable Calvinists and did not let his passion for truth divide from others, believing that ‘kindness and concession are far better than vehement argumentation and uncharitable discussion’ (Horae Homileticae, Vol. 15, p. 357).

An example of how he lived out this counsel is seen in the way he conversed with the elderly John Wesley. He tells the story himself:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree. (Moule, 79f)

Some matters on which Islam and Christianity are right (and atheism is wrong)

Both Christianity and Islam have been tremendously influential in world history. About one quarter of the world’s population at least nominally, would regard themselves as Christians. One in five would call themselves Muslims.

Yet for most of the last thirteen centuries the two religions have developed in parallel in separate parts of the world. Islam has mainly been centred in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, India and South East Asia (especially Indonesia and Malaysia). By contrast Christianity has been confined largely to Europe, North and South America, Africa and the former Soviet Union. And yet both have been, and still are, growing rapidly.

Now, perhaps for the first time in world history, Christians and Muslims can meet and exchange views in a way that they’ve never been able to before. This is especially possible in schools, university forums and on the internet where Muslim Christian dialogue is taking place on an unprecedented scale.

In many ways Muslims and Christians find themselves as co-belligerents in a common battle against the modern world. The West is now not Christian but rather post-Christian and post-modern. It’s characterised by an obsession with media technology (consumerism and entertainment), a radical relativism which asserts that we can all have our own private truth, an ego-centrism (which looks after number one) and a religious pluralism which asserts all religions are the same. This way of thinking has led to escapism and cynicism in society generally.

By contrast both Christianity and Islam find themselves running against this ideology. They share a concern for community, service and absolute truth: involvement rather than escapism, hope as opposed to cynicism. While postmodern society holds that man is simply a clever monkey, the product of matter, chance and time in a Godless universe, Muslims and Christians are together in asserting that man was made to enjoy a relationship with God.

There are obviously strong differences between the truth claims of Islam and Christianity – especially with regard to the person, words and work of Jesus Christ – but it’s also useful to map out our common ground. Here there are seven common strands clearly evident.

First, Islam and Christianity share a common ethical code, one which underlies respect for marriage, a belief in the sanctity of life, and a respect for property. The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament are very similar to Islamic ethics and as Christian doctors we find ourselves agreeing with Muslims on many ethical issues. For example members of the Christian Medical Fellowship work together with members of the Islamic Medical Association within Care Not Killing, which campaigns against the legalisation of euthanasia.

Second, Christianity and Islam share a common geography and history. The two religions date back to the Middle East and in particular come together in the person of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

Third, we share a belief in one God. This may seem a surprise to Muslim readers, but both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible assert God’s oneness. ‘The Lord is one’ says Deuteronomy 6:4. ‘There is One God…’ says 1 Timothy 2:5.

Fourth, we share a belief in prophets – men throughout history chosen as God’s mouthpiece who spoke God’s Word. Many of these prophets are shared in both religious traditions. For example: Moses who brought us the Torah (Taurat), David who brought us the Psalms (Zabur), and of course Jesus who preached the Gospel (Injil). There are several other biblical prophets who are also mentioned in the Qur’an.

Fifth, we share a belief in angels: heavenly beings who are used as God’s messengers throughout history. Gabriel in particular plays a prominent place in both religions. Muslims believe that Muhammad was visited by Gabriel and of course Christians believe that Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus Christ.

Sixth, we share a belief in Scriptural authority. We accept that God’s revelations throughout history have been recorded in books, and while we may disagree about the degree of divine inspiration of the various books in our religious traditions, we nonetheless both share a profound respect of the authority of ‘Scripture’.

Seventh and finally, we share a belief in the day of judgment. Both, Christians and Muslims, hold that on this day God will divide everyone who has lived on our planet into two groups; one group consigned to heaven (paradise) and the other group consigned to hell. While we differ on the criteria by which that judgment will be made, we nevertheless concur on the fact that there are only two possible destinations for human beings after death.

As a basis for dialogue aimed at establishing the truth, it is worthwhile first to acknowledge these convictions that are held in common by Christians and Muslims and are not shared by atheists - matters on which Islam and Christianity are right and atheism is wrong.

Where I take issue with some Catholic teaching about Mary

There is no doubt that Mary, the mother of Jesus, plays an important role in salvation history. Like John the Baptist, her coming is prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:23). She is personally visited by the angel Gabriel at the time of Christ’s conception and is told that she is highly favoured by God (Luke 1:28).

She prophesies about Christ while he is still in the womb (Luke 1:46-55), and is given the responsibility by God of being the earthly mother of the Lord. It is no wonder that Elizabeth, is inspired by God's Spirit, to say of Mary ‘Blessed are you among women’! (Luke 1:42)

These are all biblical truths to be treasured and affirmed. However, some Catholic traditions have added to these facts, other statements which the Bible does not affirm. These add to Scripture, contradict other biblical teachings and both elevate Mary and subjugate Christ. Specifically:

1. Mary was born without sin

‘the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin' (Lumen Gentium 56); ' the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin' (LG 59) 

The Bible nowhere states this. This contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10-12, 23). It means also that Christ was not the ‘second Adam’ (Romans 5:12-19), but rather Mary was. It also implies that Christ’s death and resurrection were not necessary for Mary’s salvation (Romans 5:8). The doctrine is a mistaken deduction from the truth that Jesus was born without sin. In fact, Jesus’ sinlessness was not jeopardised by being the son of a sinner.

2. Mary remained a virgin

' the Mother of God, ever virgin' (LG 69)

The Bible does not say this. It rather implies that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus’ birth (Matthew 1:25). This is consistent with the fact that Jesus had siblings (Mark 6:3, 12:46,47), and that there is no suggestion of Joseph being polygamous.

3. Mary is the mother of the church

‘We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ' (New Universal Catechism 975) 

Mary is nowhere given this title in Scripture, and it places Mary on a par with God himself, the only one Christians may address as ‘father’ (Matthew 23:9). This is an unwarranted deduction from Jesus’ instructions to John at the time of the crucifixion (John 19:26,27). He makes it clear elsewhere that the term mother (as opposed to Mother of the Church) can justifiably be applied to other women disciples who do his will (Matthew 12:48-50).

4. We should pray to Mary

‘ the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix’ (New Universal Catechism 969); 'the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs' (NUC 971)

Scripture tells us only to pray to God the Father (Matthew 6:9). Communication with the dead is elsewhere forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:11; Isaiah 8:19). Christ is the only mediator between God and man. The Hail Mary in which Mary is enjoined to ‘pray for us sinners’ presupposes that we ourselves cannot have the confidence to enter ‘the Most Holy Place’ by the blood of Jesus alone. This is simply not true (Hebrews 10:19-22).

5. The assumption of Mary

‘the Immaculate Virgin...  on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe’ (LG 59)

Again, there is no biblical record of this event occurring. The ‘assumptions’ of Enoch, Elijah and Moses are mentioned (Deuteronomy 34:6; Jude 9; 2Kings 2:11; Genesis 5:24) but not that of Mary.

These and other more fanciful claims such as the pre-existence and immaculate conception of Mary herself (ie Mary was also conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit), can mean that in practical terms she ends up occupying a place equal if not higher than that of Christ himself. In some Catholic traditions she even becomes the Wisdom of the early chapters of Proverbs and the Woman of Revelation 12.

Christ makes it clear that it is those who do the will of God who are truly blessed (Luke 11:27-28) and while Mary is without doubt included in this number, she is by no means unique in this regard. I am sure she would agree with me. 

Belgian Parliament on verge of fully legalising child euthanasia with final vote on 13 February

I have previously documented Belgium’s meteoric rise to become the euthanasia capital of Europe and its concomitant grisly descent down the slippery slope.

Now the country is moving to allow euthanasia for sick children.

The measure has already passed by 50 votes to 17 in Belgium’s upper house and only needs a vote in the lower house to pass fully into law.

The Belgian government announced yesterday that the debate on the child euthanasia bill, in the Chamber of Deputies, will occur on 12 February.

According to the Belgian media the vote will likely happen the next day, but possibly on the same day of the debate.

The bill is being fast tracked likely because a strong opposition to it is developing. 

A few weeks ago, a large protest was held in Brussels opposing the extension of euthanasia to children.

An English petition against the move has already gained over 56,000 signatures and other language versions of the petition are accessible on the home page of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe website (Please add your signature).

Last week 38 Belgian paediatricians denounced the child euthanasia bill. The paediatricians stated that extending euthanasia to children was not necessary because:

1. Even the most complex medical cases can be solved in the current legal framework, with the means and expertise at our disposal. For whom is this legislation therefore designed?

2. Children in Belgium are not suffering. The palliative care teams for children are perfectly capable of achieving pain relief, both in hospital and at home.

3. A sensitive child may perceive the option of euthanasia as a solution or a duty, especially if the child feels that the parents can no longer bear to see him suffer.

4. In practice, there is no objective method for determining whether a child is gifted with the ability of discernment and judgment. So this is actually largely subjective and subject to other influences.

The paediatricians concluded: 

We believe that there is no urgency to pass this bill in the current legislature.

In a key demonstration of cross-continent opposition, parliamentarians from across Europe have now laid down a motion at the Council of Europe – best known for its focus on human rights – also denouncing this latest of alarming developments in the country’s law.

Written declaration no. 567, is entitled ‘Legalisation of euthanasia for children in Belgium’.

The Declaration states that extending euthanasia to children:

1. Betrays some of the most vulnerable children in Belgium by accepting that their lives may no longer have any inherent value or worth and that they should die

2. Mistakenly assumes that children are able give appropriate informed consent to euthanasia and that they can understand the grave meaning and complex consequences associated with such a decision

3. Promotes the unacceptable belief that a life can be unworthy of life which challenges the very basis of civilised society.

36 British MPs and Peers are members of the parliamentary assembly (18 principals and 18 substitutes – is your MP among them?) and thankfully seven have already signed the declaration. 

They are:

·         James CLAPPISON MP (C, Hertsmere)

·         David DAVIES MP (C, Monmouth)

·         Sir Edward LEIGH MP (C, Gainsborough)

·         Jeffrey DONALDSON MP (DUP, Lagan Valley)

·         Joe BENTON MP (L, Bootle)

·         David CRAUSBY MP (L, Bolton North East)

·         Sir Alan MEALE MP (L, Mansfield)

Care Not Killing, for which I act as Campaign Director, has covered this issue in context a number of times (see here, here, here and here)  and fully endorses the parliamentarians’ view that the move ‘betrays some of the most vulnerable children in Belgium by accepting that their lives may no longer have any inherent value or worth and that they should die... [and] promotes the unacceptable belief that a life can be unworthy of life which challenges the very basis of civilised society.’

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia. 

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

Belgium's law, which came into effect in 2002, permits euthanasia for those in a ‘medically hopeless’ situation due to a serious and incurable condition caused by injury or illness, with physical and/or psychological suffering which is constant and unbearable, and cannot be mitigated.

But it is clear that in practice the boundaries are continually migrating and the nation's moral conscience is shifting year on year. Call it incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope - whatever - it is strongly in evidence in Belgium.

With the Falconer and MacDonald bills currently before the House of Lords and Scottish Parliament respectively Britain needs to take sober warning from events across the English Channel.

Other articles

Belgium’s meteoric rise to become euthanasia capital of the world (This blog)

Belgium’s grisly descent down euthanasia’s slippery slope (This blog)

Belgian Child euthanasia bill will likely go to a vote on 13 February (Alex Schadenberg’s blog)

A catalogue of reasons why Margo Macdonald’s Assisted Suicide Bill should be rejected

An opinion piece in The Guardian on Saturday by the Editor of the Daily Mail in Scotland, Kevin McKenna, provides a powerful critique of Margo MacDonald MSP’s Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill.

Mr McKenna highlights that, although Ms MacDonald’s Bill contains safeguards and claims to ensure that only terminally ill people or those suffering from deteriorating progressive conditions can seek assistance with dying, it may encourage those suffering from depression to take their life.

Mr McKenna reinforces this point by noting that Ms MacDonald’s proposed Bill mirrors the Oregon model which, when passed into legislation, led to a 450% increase in assisted suicides, 20% of which involved depressed individuals.

He continues by challenging the view upon which support for assisted suicide hinges - that we should ‘alleviate the suffering of a fellow human being in extremis’ - with the example of sufferers of locked-in syndrome (LIS).

McKenna highlights that, contrary to the assumption that most LIS sufferers must have reached a stage where life is simply not worth living anymore and should be put out of their misery, the largest-ever study of chronic LIS patients found that almost three-quarters were happy and that only 7% had suicidal thoughts.

He also suggests in the piece that Ms MacDonald campaign instead for a minimum quality of palliative care for everyone in Scotland who requires it at the end of their lives. 

Last week Marilyn Golden, Senior Policy Analyst with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) in the United States published a blog in which she neatly summarised why legislation allowing assisted suicide is so dangerous. Here’s her list of reasons which is equally applicable in the UK:

1. Assisted suicide is a deadly mix with our profit-driven healthcare system. At $300, assisted suicide will be the cheapest treatment. Assisted suicide saves insurance companies (and governments) money.

2. Abuse of people with disabilities, and elder abuse, are rising. Not every family is a supportive family! Where assisted suicide is legal, such as in Oregon, an heir or abusive caregiver may steer someone towards assisted suicide, witness the request, pick up the lethal dose, and even give the drug—no witnesses are required at the death, so who would know?

3. Diagnoses of terminal illness are too often wrong, leading people to give up on treatment and lose good years of their lives, where assisted suicide is legal.

4. Where assisted suicide is legal, no psychological evaluation is required or even recommended. People with a history of depression and suicide attempts have received the lethal drugs.

5. Financial and emotional pressures can also make people choose death for fear of being a burden upon others. Legislating increases these pressures.

6. Legalising assisted suicide is unnecessary. Everyone already has the legal right to refuse
treatment and get full palliative care, including, if dying in pain, pain-relieving palliative sedation.

7. There are no true safeguards against abuse. Where assisted suicide is legal, the safeguards are hollow, with no enforcement or investigation authority.

8. Prejudice against disabled people is already widespread and their quality of life underrated.  Will doctors and nurses fully explore their concerns and fight for our full lives? Will they get suicide prevention or suicide assistance?

This debate is primarily about autonomy versus public safety. The current law we have is clear and right. Through its blanket prohibition of assisted suicide it provides a strong disincentive to abuse and exploitation whilst allowing prosecutors and judges discretion in hard cases. It has both a stern face and a kid heart and does not need changing.

Scottish legislators should give the same short shrift to Macdonald’s latest bill as they gave to her last by overwhelmingly rejecting it. 

I'm grateful to Whitehouse Consulting for drawing my attention to the McKenna article above.