Assisted Suicide: We Must Uphold Life / Rev. Frank Ritchie

This piece was originally published on Rev. Frank's personal blog. To read more from Frank find his blog here.

Last week the discussion around assisted suicide in New Zealand took another step as Parliament debated and voted on whether or not to put the issue to a referendum. They voted to send it to a public referendum. I personally think it was a sidestepping of their duty – washing their hands of the situation.

The public lobbying from here will be divisive, heated, messy, emotional, and personal.

Being someone who holds to the Trustee Model of representative democracy espoused by Edmund Burke rather than Delegate Model (though in reality most politicians act as a complex mix of both depending on the issue), it’s my view that it is the responsibility of Parliament to make the decision on assisted suicide and own it either way, though I personally do not support the legislation.

It is my view that if this legislation passes it will be a fundamental shift in our society. It involves core aspects of our humanity. It reaches into how we measure the value of life, how we understand and approach death, and how we journey with those who are suffering.

The arguments in favour of assisted suicide tug at our deepest emotions. They speak to our compassion for others, but also our very own personal fear of death itself, most especially a painful death.

The argument around it demands that we ask “what if that were me?” or “what if that were someone I love?” Many have had to personally face these questions.

It seems obvious to some that a person facing imminent death with a horrid condition that robs them of any sense of how we usually understand and measure personal dignity; a condition where pain and suffering seem inevitable, should be able to ask another person to take their life.

I get this case. I’m a church minister and It’s one of our fundamental roles to be with people as they face pain and suffering. When requested, we aim to be there with the dying and their families. We’re supposed to be there when the grief ensues following someone’s passing. I understand why people may want to take more control. Death is never pleasant.

But I cannot support it. I cannot support assisted suicide because premature death as an answer to any human condition goes against every fibre of my being that says human life is precious even when it seems to have lost the measures of ‘dignity’ that our current, fickle culture deems worthy.

I want to be part of a society whose instincts are towards life.

At a time when our suicide rates are extremely high and mental health is a key issue, we should be doing all we can to express and uphold the fundamental value of human life. Even with all its good intent, this bill sends the message that it’s ok to view some human lives as worth ending prematurely.

I also cannot support it because I do not trust the state or our wider society to never make a mistake.

With assisted suicide, because it’s probable that the system will get it wrong from time to time when ending human life for the most vulnerable, I’m not willing to grant that power.

The stakes are too high for anyone to get it wrong.

Do we trust the state, the system, and society enough for no person, ever, to feel coerced directly or indirectly, into deciding to ask someone else to take their life? Do we truly think no pressure would ever be felt? The very existence of the law itself acts as a form of pressure because it says that it is a choice that is worth considering.

Do we trust that those who would decide whether someone’s request should be approved or denied, have the ability to spot any form of coercion or pressure whatsoever, direct or indirect – especially when the person making the request seeks to hide that felt coercion and pressure? What’s the cost of getting it wrong even once?

If this legislation passes, it opens the door to death as an answer to human suffering. It is going to be a difficult door to close if we regret it, and there is nothing to stop future governments broadening the law.

I’m not a fan of what is often called the ‘slippery slope’ argument, but in this case it is relevant.

It’s relevant because we’re a society that wishes to avoid suffering at all costs. We don’t do well with our own suffering, and nor do we do well with the suffering of others. Our individualism means that too often people feel alone in their struggles because of our desire to avoid suffering.

It’s relevant because we’re a society that too often measures the value of people based on how useful they are. At its most crass, usefulness is measured economically.

It’s relevant because no person wants to be a ‘burden’ on others and many wish to avoid carrying the burdens of those around them.

All of these factors create an unseen pressure on those making the decision.

This is a society that is not equipped to make choices for death without the vulnerable being collateral damage.

Such a society does indeed need a fundamental shift, but that shift should not be towards death as an answer – it should be towards seeing the value of all human life. We need a shift towards a deepened, more intimate sense of community and connection that makes sure no person feels alone in their pain.

We need a shift to being a society that is willing to spare no expense to care for those who are facing the end of life right to the moment they take their last breath. Palliative care should be abundantly funded.

We should never send any message that offers a contradiction to the value of all people.

We must uphold human life.

Reverend Frank Ritchie is from the Waikato and is a minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand. He curates a local congregation in Kirikiriroa Hamilton, called Commoners. Rev. Frank also works as a media chaplain, and co-hosts Total Recall on Newstalk ZB every Sunday evening from 6pm.’