Lecretia Seales – Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Assisted Dying https://christiansforvad.org.au Formerly known as Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia Fri, 28 Aug 2020 05:21:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.13 Rev Craig Kilgour, New Zealand. Sermon – My nephew had an assisted death in Canada: it was compassionate, it was humane, it was right and good. https://christiansforvad.org.au/rev-craig-kilgour-new-zealand-sermon-my-nephew-had-an-assisted-death-in-canada-it-was-compassionate-it-was-humane-it-was-right-and-good/ Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:44:56 +0000 https://christiansforvad.org.au/?p=560 I am re-posting this sermon in support of the End of Life Choice Bill which would enable terminally ill New Zealanders to have the choice of assisted deaths under specified circumstances.  To become law, this Bill requires a YES vote in a Public Referendum question to be included at the  General Election to be held September 2020.

I restate – the last two paragraphs of the sermon sum up the compassionate Christian approach to Assisted Ding Choice.   Ian Wood

From our friends across the Tasman I have this Sermon in strong support of Assisted Dying from Rev Craig Kilgour, when Interim Moderator at St Columba’s Presbyterian Church, Havelock North, New Zealand..

It is quite unique in that a nephew of Craig had an assisted death in Canada.  The last two paragraphs of the sermon sum up the compassionate Christian approach to Assisted Dying Choice: “Let me finish this with what my family members said and repeated often using these words about my nephew’s death: It was compassionate, it was humane, it was right and good. And the family are very proud and humbled with the courage he showed in his battle with cancer. And to me no one has the right to be critical and judgemental of the choice he made.

So for me and my family this is not a philosophical debate, it is not a theological debate, it is not a theoretical debate, it is a reality and it was right and my nephew was fortunate he lived in Canada.”

The sermon is posted here with the kind permission of Rev Craig. In response to my question on what was the reaction of his congregation to the sermon Craig replied: the reaction from the congregation was very positive with many copies requested. Copies went wider into the community. I’ve been asked to speak to a retired group of Doctors at Hastings hospital. 

Ian Wood

 

 

Rev Craig Kilgour

Sunday 14 October 2018

Assisted dying

The topic I’ve chosen for the sermon might seem strange for a morning when we celebrate the birth and baptism of Angus, but then I thought when life ends, we celebrate the life lived whatever the length.

I mentioned my dilemma to Granddad David and he said it evens things out!

I want to share with you this morning about what our family has experienced just recently.

I’m going to talk to you about assisted dying, euthanasia, a topic which is difficult to deal with, and it provokes very strong feelings.

The End of life choice Bill is currently with Parliament’s Justice Select Committee. There have been 35 000 submissions – think about terminal illness, a few months to live, sound mind, to allow physician-assisted death.

I with some of the congregation, attended a discussion on the Bill, that our MP Lawrence Yule had called with a panel of experts at our Community Centre a while ago.

The issue has been debated by the General Assembly of our church and they were unanimously opposed against supporting the Bill before Parliament.

After I took the service on 30 September, I went across to Takaka for the memorial service for my nephew who had died in Canada. He was 47 years old. The memorial service was held on Wednesday 3 October in the Pohara Boat Club – a place where he loved racing his yachting.

I did the eulogy and the internment of ashes at the local cemetery.

It was hard taking part in the service but good to spend a week with the family. I got back home last Monday.

So let me give you a background that led up to his death in Canada on 18 September.

My nephew was born in Timaru and when quite young, the family moved to Takaka. He went to Golden Bay High School. He loved sport of all kind – rugby league was his first love and he continued to follow the warriors in Canada. He was into motorsport, dirt bike racing stock cars, yachting. Although he suffered from seasickness, he was a very competent sailor. He was adventurous – rock climbing, skydiving, bungee jumping.

When he left school, he became a share milker, he worked in Western Australia on outback stations as a jackaroo, he tried deep sea fishing in a Sealords boat. He met his wife at a Takaka A & P Show. She was a local vet. In 2006 they left for overseas for London, Zimbabwe and Canada. They got married on Christmas Eve in a chapel at Las Vegas in 2007. Seven years ago they had twin girls and five years ago another daughter.

Five years ago my nephew was diagnosed with an aggressive melanoma on his face. He had surgery which twisted his face, radiations that destroyed hearing in one ear and affected his swallowing and numerous chemotherapy sessions that left him sick. He was given experimental drug treatments. The best treatment he could have in Canada. He was able to have medical cannabis to help him sleep and control the pain.

Early in September my brother and sister in law along with their son and daughter went to Canada to be with the family.

My nephew and his wife gathered the family together to tell them that he would stop any further treatment and that they had decided with the doctors that his life would end on 18 September.

Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled that the Right to Die with Dignity was a basic human right. You might remember Lecretia Seales, the 42 year old lawyer dying of a brain tumour, went to the High Court in Wellington. The Court ruled that Parliament needed to change the law.

I was in contact with my brother as to how they were coping. He said it was difficult but because of their son’s condition, the pain and discomfort he was facing and the appalling future he faced, they accepted the decision made.

The day before he died my nephew cleared out his shed and burnt rubbish. The next day in the presence of his wife and 3 young daughters, he died.

While in Takaka, I talked extensively with the family. They all felt that what had taken place was right and that he was at peace.

The challenge I think we all faced, personally I had for many years been in favour of assisted dying. Intellectually I believe it needs to come in our country – even if it is for a relatively small number of people – but when it actually comes close and to your family, emotionally it is much tougher to deal with.

You occasionally hear opponents to the Bill use the slippery slope argument, but this argument has been used for every social advance we have made in society: giving emancipation to people of colour, votes for women – we celebrate 125 years in New Zealand – decriminalizing homosexuality, same sex marriage. We are making society more permissive but more humane.

While I lived in America for nearly six years, I read extensively about the State of Oregon. The law on which our one is modeled on, has been in operation for nearly 20 year. Oregon has a population of 4.1 million. They found that over a ten year period on average 30 each year used the legislation to end their lives – again under strict guidelines. A number of people were able to use the means to end their lives but didn’t use it. They had peace of mind. Whenever it is on a ballot, conservative groups have tried to deny this right – each time it has been overwhelmingly defeated. It was widespread public support.

Just a few reflections:

I recently read Nikki Gemmell’s book ‘After’. She is a top Australian novelist and writes a regular column in The Australian. I jotted down in my note book a few quotes from the book:

– In the fraught world of euthanasia – if the perpetrator’s family cannot by law be involved in the wishes of the person wanting to die, then you are condemning that person to a horrendously bleak and lonely death.

  • We are not talking about taking life, we are talking about releasing it.
  • Embracing individual choice is the mark of a mature nation.
  • As we become more empowered as individuals, we need laws out of compassion for people wanting to die.
  • I’m in favour of the freedom to choose.

Dr Philip Nitschke – Exit ‘those who seek to exert control over the dying process are pragmatic and directed – and are not cowards, but courageous.’

Nikki Gemmell’s mother committed suicide without telling anyone. Her mother had suffered chronic pain from a couple of botched operations. The book ‘After’ came out of her and the family coping with her mother’s death. She wrote about her experience in her column and had been flooded with responses.

While on holiday in Rarotonga with friends, one evening we were discussing euthanasia. One of our friends, a local GP, made a couple of comments to me. First he said in the 36 years I was in ministry I had more to do with death and dying than he did as a doctor!

And towards the end of the discussion he said would I be able to help someone to end their life with pills?

I went to bed with that on my mind. Next morning at breakfast I said to him Yes I could if I loved someone, they were suffering and I knew their wishes. Someone in the group said to me; Where is God in this? I said I’m not sure God has anything to do with it, but on later reflection, if God is love – and love is shown, yes God is present.

Ian Harris: “What does love, when focussed unwaveringly on the wellbeing of another require for this person in these circumstances at this time?”

The other reflection I have is that over all my time in ministry I visited many parishioners in Senior Citizen homes/Rest homes. I had known many of their life stories. Most had lived full, rich lives, adventurous lives, they were ready and wanting to die. Numerous ones would say; Craig, I hope I could go to sleep and not wake up. I would often reply they needed to be patient and accept the love given by family and friends – if they had anyone. It wasn’t that they felt a burden on others but rather life itself was a burden. Doing basic things took everything out of them.

In a recent Listener article on Jenny Gibbs, one of New Zealand’s leading philanthropists, had made a submission to the select committee considering the issue of voluntary euthanasia.

I quote: “I wouldn’t dream of stopping you from having your views and doing what you think is right and proper. I know some people think suffering is ennobling and I wouldn’t dream of stopping someone who believed that. By the same token I can’t see why you should stop me from living or dying by my beliefs. It is as simple as that – choice.”

As someone said there will be no more deaths, but less suffering.

Let me finish this with what my family members said and repeated often using these words about my nephew’s death: It was compassionate, it was humane, it was right and good. And the family are very proud and humbled with the courage he showed in his battle with cancer. And to me no one has the right to be critical and judgemental of the choice he made.

So for me and my family this is not a philosophical debate, it is not a theological debate, it is not a theoretical debate, it is a reality and it was right and my nephew was fortunate he lived in Canada.

Photo supplied by Rev Craig Kilgour

]]> A thoughtful sermon from New Zealand in support of assisted dying. https://christiansforvad.org.au/a-thoughtful-sermon-in-support-of-assisted-dying-from-new-zealand/ Thu, 08 Sep 2016 02:25:36 +0000 https://christiansforvad.org.au/?p=297 Glynn Cardy, Minister at the Community of St Luke

Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand :: Remuera – Newmarket

Physician Assisted Dying

Colossians 3:12-15 Luke 5:25-34
Sun 28 June 2015

The debate about physician assisted dying has been given added impetus with the recent trial in the High Court regarding Lecretia Seales.  Those who are seeking a change in the law wish that no prosecution would follow if a terminally ill person had reached a clear, voluntary, settled, and informed decision to end their life and the assisting physician was motivated wholly by compassion.

There are a number of Christian denominations[i] that support passive euthanasia, namely the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment for the terminally ill when warranted.  Passive euthanasia is legal in New Zealand.  Active and passive euthanasia though in a hospital setting are sometimes not as easily separated in practice as it is in theory.

While Christian leadership is generally opposed to physician assisted dying there are some important exceptions.  These include the renowned Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung, the former Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu,[ii] and the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey.  A UK poll (2015) showed 62% of religious adherents supported physician assisted dying.

The problem of having to endure a painful end to one’s life has long been recognized.  What is different today is that firstly, due to medical advances, people are able to be kept alive longer – usually, but not always, in a way that is beneficial to them.  There is a fear of being powerless in a system often seemingly driven by a cult of medicalisation.  As Hans Kung says, “Medicine can deny a patient a humane death.”[iii]

Secondly, there has been significant growth in the belief in personal autonomy and the right to make decisions affecting oneself.  Today, for example, in NZ an individual usually chooses one’s marriage partner and career path (both of which were predetermined in times past).  Should not the person most directly affected have the biggest say?

Personal responsibility and freedom of conscience is also fundamental to religious thinking.  It is part of the Christian doctrine of Imago Dei.  That doctrine asserts that human reasoning, autonomy, compassion, and responsibility are reflective of the essence of God, and should be encouraged.  It also asserts that every person has an innate God-given dignity and should be treated with respect.  Therefore it can be argued that assisted dying is justified as part of the difficult responsibility of using our reasoning and compassion.

This doctrine needs to be considered alongside that of the sovereignty of God – namely that life is a gift given by a deity who is sovereign over life and death.  However the metaphor of a sovereign God – like a feudal king determining the beginning and end of a life – needs to be reconsidered.  Our living conditions, our climate, our medical history and genes, and our culinary choices significantly determine whether we live and die.  As does medical technology and drugs.

The well-known verse from Ecclesiastes 3:2, “There is a time to be born and a time to die,” does not specify who does the choosing.  In previous eras it was assumed both were pre-ordained by God, but humans have in the last century acted in lieu of God at both ends – e.g. conception via test-tubes, and prolonging death by heart transplants.

Other Christians, while affirming life as a gift, would re-frame God as primarily ‘love’ rather than ‘sovereign’.  The love called God therefore would be the backdrop and potential inspiration for living; and in this way would be a/the source of meaningful life.  God as the giver of life is understood therefore not in a literal way as the instigator of every conception, or the taker of life in tsunamis and wars.

As part of these notions of God as source or sovereign is the guiding principle of the sanctity of life.  It has encouraged Christians to care and intervene in situations beyond moral and political borders, for example in opposing infanticide, capital punishment, and war.  It has encouraged great and noble feats of caring for the vulnerable.  It has inspired the Human Rights movement.  It has inspired scientists to seek ways to make life better, to find new treatments, and new medicines.

However belief in the sanctity of life does not mean believing in the sanctity of suffering, or disregarding steps to avoid it.  If a terminally ill person does not wish to live out his/her last few months in pain, for what purpose should they be forced to do so, and in whose interests?  When does doing no harm[iv] to a patient become hindered dying?  Prolonging life may be causing harm.

There are those who argue that suffering is religiously beneficial to prove character or teach humility, or to encourage others to care for the ill.  But, as Rabbi Romain says, “it is a cruel God who uses human agony as a divine blackboard for relatives looking on.”[v]

There are those too who argue that modern pain control has eradicated undue suffering. Palliative care is of great importance in terminal illness, but it is not the universal panacea that some claim it to be.  Drs Munglani and Bhaskar for example, eminent UK consultants in pain medicine conclude that “some pain is unresponsive to the most powerful analgesics.”[vi]

The rebuttal that such patients should be maintained in a permanently sedated state is ethically unsustainable.[vii]  Dr Atul Gawande, who was at the recent Auckland Readers and Writers Festival, draws the more sustainable conclusion that it is “heartless not to offer people in unbearable suffering the opportunity to end their lives.”[viii]

Alongside guiding principles of personal autonomy and responsibility, and the gift and sacredness of life, is therefore the principle of compassion.  The Bible, like other great sacred scriptures, is clear on the importance of compassion – as both a practice and a guide.  It is belief in a God who is indiscriminately compassionate that informed the Christian belief in the sacredness of all life.

WWJD?  [What would Jesus do?]  He asked people to make choices.  He saw choices as set within a common good.  He understood the dynamics of power, political as well as religious, in determining outcomes.  He understood that the vulnerable are usually the recipients of outcomes determined by the powerful.  He acted with compassion.

What then is the most compassionate thing to do?  Is the principle of supporting a person in extreme adversity to live, contrary to the principle of supporting a person in extreme pain (that can’t be relieved) in their choice to die?  Is it not possible to affirm both? Is facilitating a good dying, in addition to a good living, part of the practice of compassion?

For those who try to argue either way from biblical verses there is a significant lack of resources.  Simply this issue, as we know it today, did not exist in biblical times.  Yes, there are examples of biblical characters not being morally sanctioned for committing suicide, but they are all of individuals facing a traumatic future rather than being terminally ill.[ix]

The Hospice Association in Oregon opposed that state’s assisted dying legislation [1997].  Interestingly, in the 8 years since it was enacted hospice has changed its mind.  ‘Absolutely none’ of their ‘dire predictions’ had been realised.  Instead they had experienced a massive expansion of palliative care.[x]  There has been no change in the commitment to improvement in medical geriatric services.

Oregon’s experience is also that only 1 in 25 who makes a formal request will actually use a prescription.  In other words there is comfort for the dying in knowing the option is there if needed.

Theology tries to affirm both resistance to death as an enemy and acceptance of death as a friend.  It affirms the sacredness of life, human freedom, and compassion.  It is therefore theologically defensible that where a terminally ill person is suffering from unmanageable and constant pain, and has made a clear, voluntary, settled, and informed decision to die, that a lethal dose may be prescribed or administered by a person legally mandated to do so.

That said there are a number of stringent safeguards needed, including robust legal review processes, to protect the vulnerable – including those who are disabled, feeling coerced, suffering from depression, the chronically ill, or the confused.  There is also the need to consider the role of medical practitioners.  The legislation being considered in the UK for example understands physician assisted dying to refer to the provision of a lethal dose not the administration of it. [xi]

While these concerns are significant, and need very careful consideration and monitoring, they are not insurmountable.  Assisted dying is currently permitted in 10 European and North American jurisdictions.  It is important to learn from and assess these.  We need to find ways for the dying to exercise their personal sense of dignity, ‘at a time when for many, nothing dignified is happening’.[xii]  As Archbishop Carey says, “The intention is not to kill but to assist those whose personal request is to end their lives on their own terms, with tenderness and love.”[xiii]

 

[i] http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/religion

[ii] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/12/desmond-tutu-in-fav…

[iii] Rosie Harper ‘Hans Kung’s Theses on Dignified Dying’ in Modern Believing Issue 56, Vol 2, 2015, p.124.

[iv] ‘Keep from harm’ is a quote from the Hippocratic Oath.

[v] Jonathan Romain ‘A Jewish View of Assisted Dying’ in Modern Believing Issue 56, Vol 2, 2015, p.106.

[vi] Rajesh Munglani & Arun Bhaskar ‘Pain and Suffering in Cancer Patients’ in Modern Believing Issue 56, Vol 2, 2015, p.159.  Note the extensive medical bibliography at the conclusion of this article.

[vii] Professor Biggar Aiming to Kill: the ethics of suicide and euthanasia (2004) writes, “there is no such thing as pain that cannot be relieved in so far as permanent sedation can always be used as a last resort.”

[viii] A. Gawande, Being Mortal, Aging, Illness, and What Matters in the End London: Profile Books, 2014.

[ix] Samson (Judges 16:20), Saul (I Samuel 31:4), Achitophel (II Samuel 17:23) and Abimelech (Judges 9:54).

[x] This quotation is from a talk on ‘The reality of assisted dying in Oregon’ by Ann Jackson, Chief Executive of the Oregon Hospice Association 19/4/2006 in the UK House of Lords, Committee Room 4b.

[xi] This is the case in the five US states where physician assisted dying is legal, too.

[xii] A quote from Dr Philip Culbertson.

[xiii] George Carey ‘Reassessing Assisted Dying: A personal statement’ in Modern Believing Issue 56, Vol 2, 2015, p.119.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]>