Life, death, and persuasion!

It’s a fifth Sunday so, normally, I would be promoting one of the books that I have written. However, with the UK General Election now just days away, I feel it incumbent upon me to comment thereon! I am dealing with only those political parties who have candidates in the new Motherwell, Wishaw, and Carluke Constituency – but others may wish to check out their own list of candidates, with most of the parties represented in the MWCC being also represented in other parts of the UK. With a total of nine candidates, I do not have the time to deal with those who, in all likelihood, will have very little support! That, I confess, is a subjective decision on my part!

What I do not have any intention of doing is telling others how they should vote. That is a matter for the individual conscience and, for those of us who claim to be disciples of Jesus, a matter of prayer for the promised guidance of God the Holy Spirit. However, I would urge that each of us who is entitled to do so, exercise our right to vote – a right that was gained for us by the hard work and persistence of generations now long gone! I realise that there are some (perhaps many!) who are unable, in all conscience, to support any of the current political parties. I understand! To any such I would make but one plea – Use your vote! It may be that you will just draw a big X over all of the names; you may wish to write “None of these!” across the ballot paper or, at the bottom: “None of the above”. Such actions will ensure that no candidate benefits from your having voted – and, more importantly, it will show as a “spoiled vote” and, if there were enough of those, the various political parties might even reconsider their selection criteria!

So what is this post all about? Well, what I want to do is to look at what each of the political parties has to say, in their manifestos, with regard to matters that are more of a moral nature than a social or financial nature. I refer, of course, to matters that are, quite literally, matters of life and death, and to one other that has a distinctly Christian aspect.

I did undertake the responsibility of actually reading through the manifestos of the main parties, and I will also refer to personal replies to a couple of e-mails that I sent to each of my own Constituency Candidates for whom an e-mail address was provided. This, I hope, will remove any concern that I am simply about to “bang my own drum”! I already know the party for whose candidate I shall vote.

Okay – first issue. Life. I refer to both abortion and to assisted dying/suicide. I found little information in any of the manifestos. However, both my Lib Dem and SNP candidates have, in e-mails to me, made clear that there support for both of these issues is in accordance with Party policy. In the case of the SNP response, it was clearly a pre-produced response, as Marion Fellows states “… the SNP … is committed to working with Gillian Mackay to support her member’s bill …” – a Bill that was passed a couple of weeks ago! Only John Mason (SNP) in the whole of the assembly had the courage to oppose it. Ms Fellows appears to follow the Party line with regard to assisted dying, but would not vote on it as this is a devolved matter. Previous correspondence with her indicates that she also follows the Party line with regard to abortion. The other response was from Gordon Miller who, at the time, was named as the LibDem candidate. He only responded to the “End-of-life Protection Pledge”. He claims a “Christian faith”, and that he has prayed much about such issues. However, his e-mail is, to me, less than clear. He states that “… my position on assisted suicide or euthanasia is rooted in my commitment to ensuring that any policy we support truly respects the most vulnerable and respects the dignity of all individuals.” His Party manifesto states that it seeks to “Give Parliament time to fully debate and vote on legislation on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults with strict safeguards, subject to a free vote.” It makes no mention of the easily verifiable point that even the strictest of safeguards can quickly be watered down – if not disposed of altogether! However, I would also note that the final list of candidates names Hayley Bennie as the Lib Dem candidate. I have no idea as to why this apparent change was made – but there have been other instances reported of candidates being dropped because of their professed Christian faith!

The Conservative manifesto states that they “… will maintain the position that assisted dying is a matter of conscience, and will respect the will of Parliament. Debates on assisted dying should never distract from the importance of delivering high-quality palliative care services, and we will continue to support children’s and adults’ hospices.” It has no specific mention of abortion, but does state that “We will expand our international campaign on girls’ education, women’s rights, and reproductive rights.” Previous statements show that ”reproductive rights” include abortion. The party has a track record of providing funding for programmes that promote abortion overseas.

The Green Party manifesto states that “Elected Greens will support a change in the law to legalise assisted dying for people suffering from terminal disease who wish to avoid prolonged unnecessary suffering if this is their clear and settled will. Proper safeguards would be put in place.” There is no mention of abortion, but their single MP (standing down this time) consistently voted in favour of abortion.

The Labour Party, in their manifesto, make no reference to assisted dying/suicide. However, its leader has stated that “I’m personally in favour of changing the law … I think we need to make time (for a parliamentary debate). We will make the commitment … I will give you that commitment right now.” [conversation with Esther Rantzen]. The manifesto makes no mention of abortion, but does state that it “believes all women must have access to the full range of reproductive services, irrespective of where they live”.  Of course, as with other parties, it makes no reference to the health of the unborn child! It should also be noted that the attempts to legalise abortion right up to full-term (effectively decriminalising the procedure) has been headed by Stella Creasy and Dame Diana Johnson – two Labour MPs!

Reform, UK make no reference to these issues in their manifesto.

Secondly, transgender issues, and puberty blockers. These issues do not appear to have been included in the manifestos. However, both the Conservative, and the Labour parties have indicated their intentions if elected to government on Thursday. Labour has said, through the shadow woman and equalities secretary, that the party would “modernise” the system, making it more simple to obtain a “gender recognition certificate”. The Conservatives, on the other hand, has pledged to introduce new legislation that would change the definition of “sex” (i.e. gender!) to mean “biological sex,”, or “sex at birth”.

Both parties have committed to implementing the recommendations of the Cass Review – a landmark report on gender identity services for children and young people, published in April. It is, I understand, a complex, and far-reaching, review, with the author, Dr Hilary Cass, making several recommendations. NHS England has acted to implement policies that strongly discourage social gender transitioning before one has reached 18 years of age. Puberty blockers are also being withdrawn from medical practice.

Thirdly, so-called “conversion therapy”. This term applies to a practice that seeks to change, or suppress, someone’s sexual orientation, or gender identity. The problem, from a Christian perspective, is that it does not differentiate between certain coercive activities, and the pastoral counselling provided by many Christian clergy, and others. I recall, at Spring Harvest many years ago, counselling a young man who wished to deal with recognised homosexual tendencies. I shared with him from God’s Word, and I prayed with him (whilst holding his hands!). There are those, especially within the “LGBTQ+” community who would have me charged, convicted, and imprisoned/fined, for having acted in such a way.

As far as I can make out, none of the parties (apart from, probably, the Scottish Christian Party and the Scottish Family Party, neither of whom are standing in the MWCC) is supportive of Biblical counselling in these matters. However, Baroness Falkner (who chairs the EHRC) has, in a letter to Kemi Badenoch, has stated that “… any ban is fully effective in protecting people with the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment from harm, while avoiding any unintended consequences.” (my emphasis).

A brief word on marriage. None of the traditional parties appear to make any significant mention of this God-created relationship, although the Conservatives do oppose "child marriage" whilst expressing pride in their introduction of so-called "same sex marriage". However, Reform UK do propose a 25% transferable marriage allowance that would move a little closer to the French (and perhaps other!) system of "household income" for tax purposes. A number of the smaller parties do support marriage in one form or another.

Okay – a considerably longer post than normal but, if it has helped even one UK voter to decide what to do at the polling booth on Thursday, then it will have been worthwhile. Just remember – use your vote. It is your privilege, and your duty, to do so.

The Ten Words (5)

Whilst it may be argued that each of the Ten Words (Commandments) impinges on our relationship with our Creator God, the first four are specifically so.  The remaining six serve as the standards of conduct in areas of human behaviour that generate the most far reaching consequences on individuals, families, groups and society.  In other words, the first four commandments have to do, primarily, with my relationship God-ward; the following six with my relationship man-ward.

Commandment number 5 deals with the most basic human relationship, and is the second that is framed in a positive fashion.  It reads: "Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you." (Ex 20:12), and Paul points out that "... this is the first commandment with a promise." (Eph 6:2).

So what does this commandment mean?   In a world in which many who are able to do so spend small fortunes to keep themselves looking as young as possible while, at the same time, seeking (and, in some countries, succeeding) to legalise euthanasia/assisted dying/suicide, these words may sound strange.  Why should one be concerned about parents and, by extension, other elderly folk?  Such a question would not have occurred to the children of Israel.   Alan Cole writes: "This commandment is part of the general attitude of Israel to old age (as symbolising and, ideally, embodying the practical wisdom of life) commended throughout the Old Testament (Lev.19:32), and found in many other ancient peoples, notably the Chinese." (Tyndale O.T. Commentaries; in loc).

We should honour our parents as those responsible for our existence.  We should honour our parents for the care that they gave to us when we were unable to care for ourselves.  We should honour our parents for the good example that they provide for us.  Sadly, we live in a generation, and culture in which not everyone would recognise such reasons for honouring their parents.  There are, in my opinion, far too many who do not have any relationship with one/both of their biological parents.  It is quite tragic when that is the case because the child is an orphan.  It is even worse when the child has been, effectively abandoned by the parents.  Many parents, in our 'advanced', 'civilised', 'developed', western culture do not care adequately for even the youngest of children.  Indeed, there are millions of mothers who, every year, are responsible - with the willing assistance of others - for the deaths of their children by murder in the womb (aka abortion!).   One doesn't have to read too many news reports to discover that there are many parents whose only example to their children is negative. I wonder if this is why we are experiencing an unprecedented breakdown in, not only family life, but also society as a whole? 

So, how do we honour our parents?  May I suggest that we do so by showing them love, and care; by providing for them in their old age; by recognising their continuing contribution to society in general.  When I was sharing these commandments with secondary school pupils in their early teenage years, I would suggest that it might involve such simple act as keeping one's bedroom tidy; offering to wash up after a meal; volunteering to take the dog for a walk.

Of course, there are parents who are extremely difficult.  However, honouring even such should be our default position.  We may then claim the promise that "our days may be long".  For the children of Israel, this would have been understood in straightforward physical terms, and would have been applied to the land of Israel.  Today, I believe, we may rightly spiritualise the promise.  The honouring of parents is a Christian duty (Eph.6:1; cf I Tim.5:3-4, 8), and those who do so may anticipate, not simply length of days in this world, but the eternal day in the next!  It isn't the whole of the Christian life - but it is an important component part.  Jesus, Himself, affirmed the commandment.  "And He said to [the Pharisees and the scribes], 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!  For Moses said, 'Honour your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, 'What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) - then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on'." (Mark 7:9-13).

It is also worth remembering that the way in which we treat our own parents, and older folk whom we know, may well be the way in which, if we are spared to old age, we will be treated.  We really do "reap what we sow"!

To die, or not to die?

To die, or not to die?  That's a big question.  For most of us, the answer is that we wish to live for as long as possible.  However, it would appear that some of the world's legislators think differently!

At the moment, in the UK, two pro-euthanasia Bills are making their way through two different legislative bodies.  In the House of Lords, Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords earlier this year, although it is yet to be scheduled for its second reading.  In the Scottish Parliament, Margo MacDonald, MSP, is making yet another attempt to legalise euthanasia by a different name, as she presents her second End of Life Assistance Bill.

When such legislation is being considered, the proponents place a lot of weight on the circumstances of a few high-profile cases that are judged to be capable of producing great sympathy for the individuals concerned.  What is not explained, by the supporters, are the additional ramifications - or, perhaps, they have not sufficiently thought the matter through!

It was in 2002 that both The Netherlands and Belgium legalised the taking of another person's life, at that person's request and with their permission (voluntary euthanasia), provided that the person is legally competent and "... in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident". (from the Belgian legislation).  Euthanasia is also allowed in certain of the United States of America, in Canada's Quebec Province, in Albania, and in Switzerland while, in some countries, it is not legal - but a 'blind eye' is turned to it.  Assisted suicide is slightly different, but the end result is the same!

Those who oppose the legalising of euthanasia/assisted suicide may cite perfectly valid religious reasons for their position.  However, there are many who also oppose it on the basis that it could be the thin end of a wedge.  Recent news would suggest that they are correct to have such fears!

It would appear that it is not uncommon for the mentally ill to be euthanised (involuntary euthanasia).  This is already happening in both The Netherlands and Belgium with, in the case of the latter, organs being harvested from the victims. In Switzerland, the Supreme Court declared it to be a constitutional right for the mentally ill to be offered assisted suicide; while Quebec's new euthanasia legislation apparently allows the (involuntary?!) euthanasia.

Those of an earlier generation may well be hearing alarm bells ringing.  This deliberate killing of the mentally ill - and those considered not to be of any 'use' - was a policy of Hitler's Nazi administration. Aktion T4 was the name used after World War II for the 'euthanasia programme' during which physicians murdered thousands of people who were "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination". The programme officially ran from September 1939 to August 1941, but continued, unofficially, until the end of the Nazi regime in 1945.

Could such a situation re-occur in the 21st century?  Sadly, it is not impossible.   Earlier this year, witnesses appeared in the upper house of the Belgian parliament to discuss a proposal allowing euthanasia for children.  Already, under the current law, there is an exception to allow children, of at least fifteen years of age, to be euthanised, if they are “legally emancipated” from their parents.  However, Socialist Party Senator Philippe Mahoux, one of the architects of the 2002 law, is now seeking to broaden the law to include all children of any age with a serious and incurable disease and a sound mind.

With all of the, understandable, emphasis on marriage over the past year, the euthanasia Bills have received little publicity.  However, it is at our peril that we ignore the attempts, by some, to 'play God'.  It was interesting that, when Prof Stephen Hawking - himself, previously, an opponent of euthanasia - recently declared a change of mind, British paralympic star Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson criticised him, saying that weakening the law would reinforce prejudices against disabled people.

To die, or not to die?  It's much too important a question for the answer to be left to mere mortals!

Euthanasia - again!

I do hope that the proponents of euthanasia, or assisted dying, or mercy killing or whatever euphemism may be used for the deliberate taking of a human life (the word 'murder' does come to mind!) have taken full heed of the news, today, that a certain Dr Howard Martin has admitted to "hastening" the deaths (now there's a nice little euphemism to add to those already in vogue!) of dozens of his former patients - and not always with any consent from anyone!

This, of course, has long been one of the expressed concerns of those of us who are opposed to any attempt to legalise euthanasia. Regardless of how much those who support such a move may give assurances that it would only be in very strictly controlled situations that such an act would take place, the reality is that there would always be those who would take liberties that were never intended. It is interesting that the 2009 Netherlands' euthanasia statistics show a continuing increase in reported cases of euthanasia - some 45% since 2003! As far as I understand the Dutch situation, a doctor decides on whether or not to end a person's life on the objective basis of deciding the subjectivity of 'unbearable pain'!

Over the years, I have spent a fair bit of time, in a pastoral context, with those who were nearing the end of their physical lives. Some were at home; some were in hospital; some were in a hospice. In every case, I was impressed by the palliative care that they received - in not one, did I hear of a request to 'end it all now'!

It is, of course, a subject that will continue to be highly controversial, and that will give rise to emotive words from those on either side of the debate. However since, in the U.K., we consider ourselves to be civilised because we have abolished the death penalty for convicted murderers - even those whose conviction is unquestionably right - we should be careful not to rush into providing death to those who, in a particular moment, request it. As I have often stated before - it is an irreversible decision!