Dear James,
Many thanks for your reply. I'll post this letter on our blog so that your readers can explore the various links.
CNK's arguments against the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide have always been based on evidence and fact as anyone reviewing our website can confirm. We do not use faith-based arguments.
Re our membership list the page on our website that you have linked to has not actually been revised since 2006. The number of CNK member organisations is now not 28 but around 50.
Most, as anyone would expect, are faith-based or pro-life. We have never denied this and would indeed be very surprised if such organisations did not associate with CNK given our aims although as I'm sure you are aware, there are individuals who profess faith who also back the legalisation of euthanasia and many faith-based organisations who do not back CNK.
To claim that people who belong to faith communities are the only ones with principled convictions about euthanasia is nonsense. My experience of your own supporters and spokespeople is that many do in fact have strong ideological and world-view convictions (what I would call faith convictions) about such things as human autonomy, human nature and the meaning of suffering that drive them to a pro-euthanasia position irrespective of any evidence. It would be interesting to explore some of these more existential issues with you in greater depth.
As you have correctly identifed there are also a number of CNK member organisations which have no faith or pro-life connection at all and some of our strongest supporters and spokespeople are people of no faith.
You will no doubt have noticed the coverage given today in the Telegraph to the powerful submissions criticising the DPP guidance by two non-faith based groups - Dying Well (not a member organisation of CNK) and Not Dead Yet (also not a member)
Indeed DID has failed in its objectives thus far because it has been unable to convince the disability rights movement, the medical profession, parliament or the judiciary (all non-faith based entities) of the rightness of its cause. DID's appeal has been instead to a small number of high profile 'hard cases' and its own strategically timed and crafted opinion polls targetting the uninformed and uncommitted worried well and based on simple yes/no questions with selective publication of the answers.
As I said to you in my last letter my personal objections to a change in the law are both principled and evidence-based. I have never denied that. But it is the latter arguments that have won the day in Parliament in both 2006 and 2009.
My challenge to you, would be to be encourage your spokespeople to be honest about the fact that the opposition to a change in the law is actually not solely faith based - one point on which your champion Lord Joffe was challenged on in the Times today.
Whilst talking transparency I would also like you to define the term 'terminally ill' for me. I have raised this issue with your spokespeople on several occasions and received different answers (or more usually no answer) on each occasion but the public has a right to know what you mean by it given that it is central to your campaign.
And finally in the interests of transparency I wonder if you would be willing to tell your supporters and the public what percentage of Tory MPs (who it appears may make up a majority of the new parliament) answered yes and no to the various questions asked in your recent MP poll. You chose not to disclose these facts because they did not support your cause but your readers can check them for themselves on the ipsos-mori website
With kind regards
Peter
Thursday 17 December 2009
CNK Letter to the Times published today
Sir, Lord Joffe seems to be suggesting that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should disregard the views of people with religious beliefs who respond to his consultation on assisted suicide. It seems that the euthanasia lobby, which Lord Joffe represents, is now suggesting that if you belong to a faith community, your views should be of less account than those of others. I trust that the DPP will disregard Lord Joffe and give proper consideration to the views of all British citizens. To appeal solely to opinion polls sponsored by campaigning groups is overly simplistic. Assisting suicide is a serious matter and legalisation is a complex question that does not lend itself to simple yes/no questions.
This issue is far more about public safety than personal faith. Lord Joffe has been in the House of Lords on every occasion in the past six years when proposals to change the law have been debated and will have seen that most of those who spoke and voted against changing the law were not arguing from a faith basis but from a concern that such proposals were simply dangerous for the population at large and particularly for the sick, the disabled and other vulnerable people. It is disingenuous to imply that most opposition to his proposals is faith-based. He should instead be addressing the serious charge that his so-called proposed safeguards are illusory.
The DPP opposed the publication of guidelines for prosecution of assisted suicide for reasons that should be obvious. We don’t tell people how much they can steal without being prosecuted for theft or how much injury they can inflict without being prosecuted for assault, so why should we treat assisted suicide any differently? Having been overridden by the law lords, the
DPP has attempted to meet the near-impossible remit given to him without inadvertently encouraging the belief that in some circumstances assisting suicide can be done with impunity. But I am sure it will come as no surprise to him to hear that many people see his interim guidelines falling short of this objective and in need of revision.
That the euthanasia lobby sees them as a “breakthrough” tells us as much about their real agenda as it does about the well-publicised deficiencies of the guidelines themselves.
This issue is far more about public safety than personal faith. Lord Joffe has been in the House of Lords on every occasion in the past six years when proposals to change the law have been debated and will have seen that most of those who spoke and voted against changing the law were not arguing from a faith basis but from a concern that such proposals were simply dangerous for the population at large and particularly for the sick, the disabled and other vulnerable people. It is disingenuous to imply that most opposition to his proposals is faith-based. He should instead be addressing the serious charge that his so-called proposed safeguards are illusory.
The DPP opposed the publication of guidelines for prosecution of assisted suicide for reasons that should be obvious. We don’t tell people how much they can steal without being prosecuted for theft or how much injury they can inflict without being prosecuted for assault, so why should we treat assisted suicide any differently? Having been overridden by the law lords, the
DPP has attempted to meet the near-impossible remit given to him without inadvertently encouraging the belief that in some circumstances assisting suicide can be done with impunity. But I am sure it will come as no surprise to him to hear that many people see his interim guidelines falling short of this objective and in need of revision.
That the euthanasia lobby sees them as a “breakthrough” tells us as much about their real agenda as it does about the well-publicised deficiencies of the guidelines themselves.
Tuesday 15 December 2009
Lord Joffe noises off in the Times
Lord Joffe talks of Care Not Killing being ‘implacably opposed to assisted suicide’. Yes, we are opposed to a weakening of the law. But, if Lord Joffe reads our submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions, he will see that it is not a diatribe against changing the law but a careful and thoughtful analysis of the interim guidelines that the DPP has published as a basis for consultation. Or is Lord Joffe, perhaps, suggesting that, because CNK opposes the legalisation of assisted suicide, its views should not be taken seriously by the DPP? If that is so, then it must follow that the views of pro-euthanasia organisations such as Dignity in Dying should also be marginalised.
Lord Joffe seems to have little regard for the Code for Crown Prosecutors, largely on the basis that one of the Law Lords described them earlier this year as unhelpful. The Law Lord in question is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I think we need rather more evidence than that that the Code is defective before consigning it to oblivion.
Lord Joffe talks of opinion polls. Would he also support other initiatives, such as the reintroduction of hanging, leaving the European Union and banning immigration, which opinion polls often favour? Legalising assisted suicide is a complex and serious issue which risks putting vulnerable people at risk of self-harm. It is Parliament's responsibility to weigh the many issues involved, including public opinion, carefully before making a balanced decision. Parliament has done that twice in the last four years and decisively, and on a free vote, come down against changing the law.
Lord Joffe states that ‘the CNK response clearly aims to reduce to the very minimum those who will not be prosecuted for assisted dying’. Is he suggesting that it is a responsible objective to maximise instances of immunity from prosecution?
Lord Joffe believes that the DPP's interim policy ‘complies exactly’ with the Law Lords’ intentions. It is not clear how he arrives at this conclusion. What is clear is that a number of the specific conditions proposed in the interim guidelines are open to serious question - for example, that assisting someone who is seriously ill or disabled to commit suicide should be regarded less seriously than assisting someone else or that spouses and family members should be treated more leniently as assisters than others on the flawed assumption that they invariably have the interests of the deceased at heart.
We have made our views known to the DPP, and Lord Joffe and his associates have presumably done so too. We should leave Mr Starmer to form his own judgments without these ‘noises off’.
Lord Joffe seems to have little regard for the Code for Crown Prosecutors, largely on the basis that one of the Law Lords described them earlier this year as unhelpful. The Law Lord in question is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I think we need rather more evidence than that that the Code is defective before consigning it to oblivion.
Lord Joffe talks of opinion polls. Would he also support other initiatives, such as the reintroduction of hanging, leaving the European Union and banning immigration, which opinion polls often favour? Legalising assisted suicide is a complex and serious issue which risks putting vulnerable people at risk of self-harm. It is Parliament's responsibility to weigh the many issues involved, including public opinion, carefully before making a balanced decision. Parliament has done that twice in the last four years and decisively, and on a free vote, come down against changing the law.
Lord Joffe states that ‘the CNK response clearly aims to reduce to the very minimum those who will not be prosecuted for assisted dying’. Is he suggesting that it is a responsible objective to maximise instances of immunity from prosecution?
Lord Joffe believes that the DPP's interim policy ‘complies exactly’ with the Law Lords’ intentions. It is not clear how he arrives at this conclusion. What is clear is that a number of the specific conditions proposed in the interim guidelines are open to serious question - for example, that assisting someone who is seriously ill or disabled to commit suicide should be regarded less seriously than assisting someone else or that spouses and family members should be treated more leniently as assisters than others on the flawed assumption that they invariably have the interests of the deceased at heart.
We have made our views known to the DPP, and Lord Joffe and his associates have presumably done so too. We should leave Mr Starmer to form his own judgments without these ‘noises off’.
Where has Nick Cartwright been?
Nick Cartwright says (Guardian 15 December) that Parliament has resolutely refused to debate 'assisted dying'. Where on earth has he been these last few years? Parliament has debated 'assisted dying' in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009. On the last two occasions (Joffe Bill and Falconer amendment) specific proposals were put to a vote and decisively defeated.
This has nothing to do with moralist objections to changing the law, much less to so-called religious ones - a favourite excuse for failure of the pro-euthanasia lobby. Anyone who reads the Hansard records of these debates will find that almost none of the objections were of a moralist or religious nature. The issue on which the euthanasiasts have signally failed to convince Parliament is public safety - it just isn't safe to change the law as they are proposing. Talk of 'safeguards' is just that - talk! When you look at the so-called safeguards that have been proposed and examine what they add up to in practice, you soon realise that they would safeguard nobody.
The law as it stands is fit for purpose. It's robust enough to deter the malicious and flexible enough to acommodate genuinely compassionate cases. We tinker with it at our peril.
This has nothing to do with moralist objections to changing the law, much less to so-called religious ones - a favourite excuse for failure of the pro-euthanasia lobby. Anyone who reads the Hansard records of these debates will find that almost none of the objections were of a moralist or religious nature. The issue on which the euthanasiasts have signally failed to convince Parliament is public safety - it just isn't safe to change the law as they are proposing. Talk of 'safeguards' is just that - talk! When you look at the so-called safeguards that have been proposed and examine what they add up to in practice, you soon realise that they would safeguard nobody.
The law as it stands is fit for purpose. It's robust enough to deter the malicious and flexible enough to acommodate genuinely compassionate cases. We tinker with it at our peril.
Welcome to the Care Not Killing Blog
Care Not Killing is a UK-based alliance, launched in 2006, which brings together disability and human rights organisations, healthcare and palliative care groups, and faith-based organisations, with the aims of:
1. Promoting more and better palliative care
2. Ensuring that existing laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are not weakened or repealed
3. Influencing public opinion
CNK seeks to attract the broadest support among the very many in the medical profession and allied health services and in society at large who are opposed to euthanasia. It appeals to those of all faiths and none by adducing arguments based on reason alone, by avoiding any appeals to extremism, and by drawing on and developing a well-researched evidence base.
CNK aims to:
1. Maintain an excellent website with links to well founded research on the effects of legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide
2. Marshall support against Bills to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide
3. Cultivate a network of expert spokespeople and produce powerful advocacy in the media
4. Monitor developments in the courts
5. Campaign positively for increased provision of better palliative care, including more funding for hospices and better residential care for the infirm elderly and for the dying, recognising that the fear of dying alone and in pain is a powerful driver of the pro-euthanasia movement
1. Promoting more and better palliative care
2. Ensuring that existing laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are not weakened or repealed
3. Influencing public opinion
CNK seeks to attract the broadest support among the very many in the medical profession and allied health services and in society at large who are opposed to euthanasia. It appeals to those of all faiths and none by adducing arguments based on reason alone, by avoiding any appeals to extremism, and by drawing on and developing a well-researched evidence base.
CNK aims to:
1. Maintain an excellent website with links to well founded research on the effects of legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide
2. Marshall support against Bills to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide
3. Cultivate a network of expert spokespeople and produce powerful advocacy in the media
4. Monitor developments in the courts
5. Campaign positively for increased provision of better palliative care, including more funding for hospices and better residential care for the infirm elderly and for the dying, recognising that the fear of dying alone and in pain is a powerful driver of the pro-euthanasia movement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
