Theologian makes case for legal mercy killing

[Amelia]

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

Theologian makes case for legal mercy killing

Aide to archbishop of Canterbury opposes prosecuting those who assist in euthanasia

January 16, 2005

WorldNetDaily.com

A leading aide to the archbishop of Canterbury has come out in defense of voluntary euthanasia, a move some see as signaling a change in position by the Church of England.

Canon Professor Robin Gill, a leading Church of England theologian, speaking to London's Sunday Telegraph, said, "There is a very strong compassionate case for voluntary euthanasia. In certain cases ... there is an overwhelming case for it."

Gill, who in 1998 edited "Euthanasia and the Churches," cited the recent case of Diane Pretty, a terminally ill woman who campaigned for the right to assisted death following a motor neurone disease.

It was unclear whether Gill was speaking for Archbishop Rowan Williams, who had asked him, last week, to attend a parliamentary committee investigating hearing on a pending bill on assisted dying for the terminally ill.

Gill's pronouncement follows last week's release from custody of retired policeman, Brian Blackburn, who killed his terminally-ill wife by slashing her wrists then surviving his own suicide attempt. He only served three months for the "mercy killing." The judge, in dismissing him, called Blackburn a "loving husband" and his actions "as the last loving thing [he] could do for her".

Gill did not restrict his view to the morality of assisted suicide, but spoke out against prosecution of those like Blackburn who assist in killing others. "I don't know what the archbishop thinks about this issue but I believe that people should not be prosecuted when they help someone die in this country, nor should they be prosecuted if they travel abroad to help family members die in countries with different laws."

Pro-euthanasia groups have been quick to celebrate Gill's statement as evidence the Church of England is prepared to re-examine it's past opposition to assisted suicide.

"Christianity is about compassion, and one has only to look at the sad circumstances in the Blackburn case to recognise that the current law is not a compassionate response," Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, said. "Using the criminal law to determine end-of-life decisions is not medically, legally or ethically appropriate, nor is it a proper public policy approach."

"The archbishop's choice of Prof. Gill represents a willingness to enter into a more constructive dialogue than before about this important issue. We hope that it will encourage other members of the clergy to speak out in support," added Annetts.

Archbishop Williams, however, has been a longtime member and supporter of the pro-life group, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, that campaigns against legalizing euthanasia. And the Church of England recently joined the Roman Catholic Church in a joint statement in opposition to the Assisted Dying Bill which legalized euthanasia.

"Anglicans are not united on whether we should legalise euthanasia," Gill contended to the London Observer. "The bishops have consistently shown they don't believe in changing the law, but the majority of churchgoers think it should be amended."

"I cannot imagine this view would commit itself to many Christian teachers," commented Rev. Rod Thomas, a member of the Church of England's General Synod. "Only God can end life."

[Neil D]

Let's say for starters that I think that there is justification for mercy killing....

I think that there are terminal diseases that are not curable. Emphysema in the advance stages can be very difficult to live with and, having seen many people die of this disease, think that this is a horrible way to go, gasping for air and drowning in your own secretions. I do NOT approve mercy killing for the person who is mildly affected, nor in the early stages, as there are many ways/drugs to help a person to cope with the disease. But there is a point, where no help is available and short of a respiratory, you are only prolonging the ennevitable.

What are your thoughts on mercy killing?

[Nicodema]

I think if we had a truly enlightened and compassionate society, it could be a useful tool of last resort.

Unfortunately, I do not believe our current society is either enlightened OR compassionate enough to do anything with this kind of power over others but abuse it. Which is a shame for those it could help, but for now it seems the real answer is keeping it illegal on the books and addressing it quietly and discreetly on a case-by-case basis, treating each case with extreme fragility.

[bevin]

Actually, it is quietly done today in every hospital in the USA.

With terminal illnesses, there comes a point where the medical staff switch from 'prolong life' to 'make life comfortable', and the actual effect of that switch is to shorten life - i.e. to mercy-kill - because the same medication that is making the patient comfortable is hastening their death.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

and the actual effect of that switch is to shorten life - i.e. to mercy-kill - because the same medication that is making the patient comfortable is hastening their death.

---

This is not quite true, Bevin. The pain receptors get so unindated with pain killers that the patients becomes used to ever increasing levels of pain medication. The result is respiratory arrest due to overdose of pain medication. Some doctors will do this...others will not...And then there is the knowledgeable RN administering the medication, resulting in having to explain your actions, if you need to....

I read an article from Reader's Digest some years back, where Mercy Killing is allowed in some countrys of Europe, [Denmark?]. There, the mercy killing is decided by doctors, not patient. So, let's say you are a doctor who has admited a patient for an illness not associated with thier terminal illness [ie a pnuemonia with a lung Cancer]. You go off shift, and another doctor comes on and persuades your patient to sign the papers ending thier life. It was done because his patient was viable and they needed the bed [hospital was full that night].

Somehow, if just feel that mercy killing should be left alone, and done 'under the radar'. Once our society legalizes it, it becomes too easy to get rid of people, possilbly before thier time to go has come....

[Nan]

I think the country which most actively practises euthanasia is Holland.

There can be a difference between withholding life prolonging treatment and active euthanasia and I agree that it is very frequently practised. Not continuing with aggressive treatment of pneumonia in a terminally ill patient is one such, it need not effectively mean death by narcotic induced respiratory depression.

I have not indicated where I stand on this. In my specialty it is not a question I have to deal with very much, if the patients are so sick they are being cared for in high dependency wards by other staff. If one of my own family were involved - I guess it is a family decision, and I would hope not to go with active euthanasia.

[bevin]

I have memories of an incident in the Falklands War, where an Argentinian POW got caught up in a major fire/explosion at an ammunition dump.

He was seriously hurt, and being roasted alive, too close to a burning ammunition dump to be rescued.

One of the British soldiers shot him, rather than let him roast to death.

I may have everything wrong in the above memory - but assuming it is true, given a choice between (a) leaving a person to roast to death, and ( killing them - which would you do?

A similar situation arose in Halifax after the explosion of the explosives ship there in WWI. A huge fire swept through part of the demolished area of the city, and the rescuers could not get the trapped people out before the fire swept over through rubble.

In this circumstance - with multiple people trapped and an unstoppable fire racing towards them - would you want to leave them to burn alive?

/Bevin

[Amelia]

Bevin, if it were me slowly burning alive and no way of being rescued, I would want to be put out fast. But what would God think of that action by the shooter, and me for wanting it? I dont think I could stand knowing their were people slowly dying, no way to save them and wanting to pull the trigger and not able to. I dont know that I could kill another human being even if it were in their best interest.