Whose Life is it Anyway?

Whose Life is it Anyway?

If I am ever unfortunate enough to end up with some horrendous condition like motor neurone disease then I suspect that I would not wish to continue living in such a state for very long. Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps one day I’ll find myself confined to a wheelchair thinking that slurred speech, inactive muscles, and pissing myself twice a day is actually quite a fulfilling way to live. But for now I doubt that this would be the case. In the event that I end up in a wheelchair in a dreadful condition I would like to know that someone would be there to stick a needle in my arse, hold a pillow over my head, throw me off a cliff, or boil me oil. Just end it. Please. And I can’t imagine anything worse than being left in a position unable to help myself and surrounded by hoards of wankers babbling away in my left ear about respect for life while a host of pious dick-brains whisper platitudes in my right ear about perseverance in the face of life’s difficulties, and other such bollocks. Well meaning folks, perhaps; wankers and dick-brains nonetheless. In such an instance it would be MY life that is being discussed, and MY difficulties and suffering under consideration. I certainly don’t mean to sound arrogant but I judge myself to be the world’s leading expert on all matters relating to my quality of life, feelings and inner conscious states. My life is precisely that - mine. Not yours. Not society’s. Not government’s. M-I-N-E. If I no longer wish to live and someone is willing to assist me in dying then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for government to prevent my death, and thus force me to continue living.

And yet some folks disagree. This week the topic is up for discussion at a conference of the British Medical Association (BMA). It has emerged that doctors are bitterly divided as to whether or not the law should allow terminally ill patients the right to die. While many members pledged support for such a move, others argued that it would be “morally wrong” to support such a measure. Dr. Jane Orr stated that: “Nobody has a right to be killed by a doctor. It would undermine patient autonomy. It is morally wrong and contrary to the codes of medical ethics. Let us, as healthcare professionals, get on with the task of working to get a genuinely gentle and easy death that all patients deserve.”

Dr Orr’s position is a jumble of confused thinking. Granted, the woman isn’t an ethicist, but she’s made some fairly bewildering statements and one is left with the impression that someone supposedly as intelligent as you expect a doctor to be actually isn’t terribly thoughtful or reflective after all. I partially agree with her first statement - but it depends on what is meant by “right.” These days rights are normally taken to be those things which we can properly demand from government. If this is what Dr Orr means then I agree - nobody has a right to be killed by a doctor. Obviously if a patient wishes to die and no doctor is willing to help then the patient has no right to have a doctor forced by government to perform the deed. However, just because there is no right (in this sense) to be killed by a doctor doesn’t mean that doctors shouldn’t be permitted to assist a terminally ill person to die. A much better conception of rights is to see them as those areas in which government cannot justifiably interfere, rather than a bunch of things government must give us on demand. For instance, we all have a right to property. This does not mean we can all demand to be given property, but it means that if we legally acquire property we cannot justifiably be deprived of it by government. On this conception of rights, if a patient wishes to die then they have a right to be killed by a doctor if they find a doctor willing to help them. Government cannot justifiably interfere.

Orr’s second statement is more puzzling. How would denying patients a right to die hinder their autonomy? This is little other than a crude form of topsy-turvy thinking. The issue is whether patients should have a choice. In other words, the issue is about MORE autonomy, not less. There is nothing remotely autonomous about being told that you can’t have your life ended but must persist in an intolerable condition against your will. Amazingly Dr Orr finishes off with a nice platitude about giving patients the gentle and easy death they deserve. Quick Question: which is easier: (1) being forced to live against your own will in a condition you consider to be intolerable, and dying at some later date God only knows how far away or (2) making your decision to die and getting it over with minus the excess suffering? It’s a no-brainer really. Dr Orr’s denial of a right to die is in fact burdening the terminally ill with a duty to suffer.

Phrases like “morally wrong” and “unethical” are tossed about in such discussions with reckless abandon. Whenever these phrases crop up I like to ask people what they mean by “morally wrong” and “unethical.” It’s amazing the number of occasions on which this most basic of questions leaves people stumped. Those who try to offer a fuller explanation than dropping their jaw and starring blankly tend to reply in one of two ways: (1) euthanasia is a lack of respect for life and is thus morally wrong, and (2) only God (or “nature”) should decide how when and how we die, and it is “unethical” to interfere with God’s plan or Nature’s Way.

(1) is simply a blatant falsehood. Euthanasia does not show a lack of respect for “life,” or for people. On the contrary, dictating a continuance of life to those who do not wish to live is a lack of respect for the life and autonomy of a person. No one seriously suggests trying to keep people alive for as long as possible at all costs all the time. When a person is dying there is no question of preserving life at all. The only significant question left to answer is how that person dies. It is nothing less than a denigration of the person to tell them: “As you die we’ll do everything we can to bring you back and keep you alive, regardless of how much pain you are in, how low your quality of life will be, how much you suffer, what you wish or what any member of your family think.”

(2) is a haphazard bunch of mumbo-jumbo religious or pseudo-religious gunk which seems to rely on the dubious notion that humans should stay out of making life and death decisions. Here’s the fact of the matter: every single time we swallow a paracetamol tablet we are interfering with nature. Every single time a surgeon grasps the heart of a dying cardiac patient to keep the blood pumping and ultimately save the persons life, he or she is “playing God” - interfering in a life and death matter. When paramedics come across a car accident involving numerous people they may have to decide who to help and who to leave to fate - thus “playing God.” Human beings are autonomous moral agents. In other words, they are free to think, make their own decisions, act accordingly, and be responsible for so doing. If we are created by God then it seems pretty obvious that what is mockingly described as “playing God” is an essential, and divinely intended, part of human life. Those who throw this term around simply need to face the fact that a pious sounding little catchphrase doesn’t eliminate the responsibility for us to make difficult decisions.

Other opponents of good euthanasia laws complain that by allowing people with certain conditions to die or be killed we are making a judgment of other people with those conditions, effectively telling them that their life is not worth living. Often it is even supposed that if some people are allowed to make such decisions then this is itself a threat to others with similar conditions.

Proponents of this position need to grasp that their argument is a double-edged sword. If euthanasia tells people that their life is not worth living then what does denying people a choice over their own life and death tell them? Are all terminally ill and severely disabled people unable to make their own decisions? Take the shocking case of Diane Pretty. Diane Pretty was suffering from motor neurone disease, and had decided that she wanted to end her life. However, she needed her husband’s help and this was illegal. She spent her time campaigning for a right to die before she finally did, but not as she wished. Those, like me, who fully supported Diane Pretty were not making a general judgment about people who have motor neurone disease. It’s not as if we desire a Nazi “relocation service” to remove all disabled people from society and dispose of them in death camps. We simply supported Diane Pretty’s own rational decision and will to die. This in no way threatens any other person with the desire to live, for no one was advocating that people with motor neurone disease, or any other condition, should be killed against their will. On the contrary, we simply support the idea that people can choose for themselves. If you don’t want to have your life ended, then express your will to live. It should be up to each individual to decide whether or not their life is worth living.

Mick Hume is an otherwise respectable social and political commentator. Unfortunately he appears to remove his brain when commenting on euthanasia. Labelling himself as “anti legal euthanasia”, he describes the wish to die as “morbid defeatism.” Well, there you go Ms Pretty - you’re a morbid defeatist. So says that relatively fit and healthy chap over there. Hell, it’s only motor neurone disease I don‘t understand the fuss you‘re making. You’re not really going to be that bad off. Come on, Diane, you can do it! Persevere! Fight the good fight! There, there now, you’ll be grand, dry your eyes love. I’ll stick the kettle on and we’ll watch Eastenders with a nice cup of tea. Two sugars isn’t it?

It seems fairly obvious to me that people should be allowed to decide whether or not their life is worth continuing, even if that means ignoring the diktats of a tyrannical minority of people. Mick Hume might complain that euthanasia gives out the underlying message that death is the preferable solution for people severely incapacitated or in pain, but perhaps it actually is. My suggestion is that we let people decide for themselves rather than be dictated to by the fit and healthy. Moreover, there is an even more important message that legal euthanasia would give out: “it’s your life, make your own decisions” - a message that sounds more and more radical with every passing day of our current administration. Some people will wish to live, others would rather die. A good euthanasia bill would respect the wishes of everyone, and would be a welcome advance in reclaiming the notions of personal responsibility and individual autonomy.

Whose life is it anyway?

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Liberties Silenced

Liberties Silenced

Modern Britain is becoming intolerably petulant, with government legislation, most of which comes in the shape of a ban, becoming our favourite answer to any political question. Reasoned debate and discussion is swiftly being replaced by a new phenomenon: politicians, social commentators, and “activists” have taken to shrieking hysterically like tom cats with fireworks up their arse. Many seemingly wish to turn Britain into a Telly-Tubby land where everyone skips along hand-in-hand and gets on with everyone else. No debate, no disagreement, no argument, no dislike, no denunciation. Such nasty things just hurt our feelings. Minding your language and taking care not to tread on anybody’s toes is now the accepted custom. Few people have the stomach for a proper argument in which two sides try to dismantle each other’s point of view. It is notable that political arguing in the House of Commons is listed as a major reason why people are disengaged from the political arena.

And the creation of Telly-Tubby utopia is taking further strides in this new parliament. A proposal for the new crime of “incitement to religious hatred” has raised its ugly head once again, as the bill to outlaw incitement to religious hatred scraped through the House of Commons last week. The only thing has that has changed this time is the quantity of invective pouring from the mouths of its advocates. The fundamental problems have still not been addressed.

Firstly, it is rather odd that it could be an offence to incite someone to an emotion - hatred - that is itself not a crime. Secondly, “religious hatred” is defined as meaning “hatred against a group of people defined by reference to religious belief or lack thereof.” So, hating someone because they are Muslim, or Christian, or atheist, is apparently worse than hating someone just because you don’t like the look of them, or because they smell, or because you’re just a hateful bastard. Under this provision any person who uses “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” or who displays any written material which is “threatening, abusive or insulting” will be held guilty of a crime if: (1) he or she intends to stir up religious hatred, and (2) having regard for all the circumstances the words, behaviour or material are likely to be heard or seen by someone in whom they will stir up religious hatred.

Clear as mud, eh? You would think that the government could help us out here to make sense of this imprecision. However, Labour MP's have never been entirely sure themselves, or perhaps just don’t like to say. Worryingly, during a debate in the Commons, Khalid Mahmood, a Labour MP, implied that he did not rule out the application of the law in the case of The Satanic Verses. When pressed on this point the Home Office Minister Hazel Blears avoided giving a direct confirmation that Salman Rushdie could not be prosecuted under the law. In other words, Labour MP’s cannot guarantee that academic freedom of speech and an unhindered pursuit of knowledge and free enquiry will be protected. Interestingly though, Tony Blair could possibly have fallen foul of this law had it been in effect a year ago when he said: “What galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who are prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3,000 [in the 9/11 attacks]. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.” Tony Blair connected this attack to the religion of the perpetrators, and since nothing incites hatred for people more than the notion that they take pleasure is killing others, Tony Blair could have been in a spot of bother. Bang him up.

We are told by defenders of this new law that the intention is to protect people - not belief systems, a point classically stated by Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality: “God does not need to be defended by our laws, people do.” However, just what are people being protected from by this law? People do not need to be protected from an emotion. They need to be protected from criminal acts: vandalism, assault, bodily harm, theft, murder, rape. Every single one of these acts is already illegal, and none of them is any worse because they were perpetrated with a victim’s religion in mind. Hating people is not the problem. Hatred itself is not necessarily an evil, immoral or abhorrent thing. It is often a very valid emotion. Many people hate the members of Al Qaeda. In other words, they hate a certain group of people on the grounds of their religious (and political) beliefs. Is this morally degenerate? Hardly. If anything hatred of such people is a sign that one’s moral compass is working properly.

If proponents of this new law were to pay attention to the phenomena of religion and the mentality of substantial numbers of religious adherents they would realise that the neat little line they try to draw between hatred for a person and hatred for a belief system is at best fine and subjective, and at worst totally illusory. Religious belief is such a fundamental part of the lives of many people that they are insulted and offended when their belief system is. I’m sure the vast majority of Muslims on the planet would be offended at the criticism of Mohammed’s marriage to a young girl. Iqbal Sacranie writes, “defamation of the character of the prophet Mohammed is a direct insult and abuse of the Muslim community.” What would count as defamation? Arguing that Mohammed was deluded? Critisicing his marriage to a young girl? Dismissing him as a power crazy war-mongerer? It is noteworthy that many British Muslims expect this new law to protect Mohammed from criticism. Apparently they have been taken in by the new notion that they have a “right not to be offended.” But, in a liberal democracy that cherishes freedom of speech, there is no, nor can there ever be, any such right.

This new crime will, make absolutely no mistake about it, have a negative impact on freedom of speech. Ironically, as the government proposes this new bill it is also cooking up new anti-terrorist measures. One of the biggest terrorist threats to Britain is from fundamentalist nut-job Muslims. This statement is not bigoted or racist, and while it may be offensive to some Muslims, it’s a fact. And another fact is that one of the most vital weapons to fight religious nut-jobbery is open debate and freedom of speech - which are amongst the most fundamental aspects of the societies these people seek to destroy. By hindering freedoms and open debate we simply play into the hands of these freaks. Freedom of expression on religious issues has been badly eroded over the past few years, and needs to be restored, not dismantled further. The truth is that we are far too tolerant of religious quacks. They get off far too lightly. Were there any charges brought against those who condemned Salman Rushdie to a life in hiding? Was anyone charged in the aftermath of the trashing of a Birmingham theatre showing the Sikh play Behzti? Nope and nope.

During his time as home secretary, David Blunkett gave the clearest example of the sort of statement that would fall under these new provisions: “Muslims are a threat to British people and liable to molest women and that they should be urgently driven out of Britain.” Just what is wrong with saying this? Now, I’m not saying that I agree with the sentiments. The statement is ludicrous, paranoid, reactionary, illogical swill, and we all have a right to ignore such statements. But, if someone honestly believes it to be true, why should they be banned from saying so? A representative of the group JUSTICE, Gay Moon, offers a reason. She believes that we need a bill outlawing these kinds of things because otherwise Muslims - individuals, homes, schools and businesses - will be the target of vicious and repeated attacks. However, vicious and repeated attacks against Muslims - or anyone else for that matter - are already illegal. If a Muslim gets beaten up because he or she is a Muslim, is it any worse than when an old woman gets beaten up for the change in her hand-bag? A crime is a crime is a crime. A perpetrator is no less morally culpable if he beats up a Muslim for a reason that doesn't appeal to religious belief.

Ms Moon continues her defence of the new bill by stating that “no one would want to stop vigorous debate about religious belief or the lack of it, but what many people are opposed to is where such debate leads to incitement to hatred.” The problem here is that the distinction between genuine debate and debate leading to incitement to hatred is foggy. Take a non-religious example. A pro-life organisation might hold a rally at which someone argues that abortion is mass murder. This is a perfectly legitimate argument to make. However, someone at that rally might use the arguments given as justification for killing doctors who perform abortions (killing a few doctors - saving 1000’s of babies lives). Who should be blamed? Are the organisers of the debate culpable? The speaker? Hardly. The wacko fuck-wit who goes haywire is responsible for his or her own actions. The same principle would apply in the case of religion. A Christian preacher speaking out about persecution taking place in a Muslim country could very plausibly give added impetus to someone who just wants to beat up Muslims. And, even if not, it is not implausible that a Muslim would complain that the preaching might have this impact. It is a foul law indeed that threatens an elderly woman handing out gospel tracts to Muslims with a more severe punishment than most rapists end up with.

Next, Ms Moon attempts to ease worries that under this new law people will be prosecuted for telling religious jokes, for engaging in religious debate and criticism or missionary activity. She correctly points out that Jews and Sikhs are currently protected under laws pertaining to incitement to racial hatred, and that this has not stopped racist jokes or criticisms of these religions. However, what she fails to realise is that there is absolutely nothing in the text of the law to guarantee that this will continue, and, if as typically happens with this sort of thing, there is legal “slippage,” we have a fairly massive problem on our hands. Lawyers have a great ability to increase the web of litigation. They are adept at finding loop-holes, masters at jumping through all kinds of hoops, and can twist black in to white. In an increasingly petulant and intolerant climate this law is downright dangerous, largely due to the direction it is pushing us in. Members of a church in Norwich were recently under police investigation for incitement to racial hatred because they were handing out leaflets with a view to converting Muslims. BNP leader Nick Griffin fell under similar suspicion when he described Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” that was spawned by a “handful of cranky lunatics.” Neither of these statements are racist (since Islam is not a race) but these cases cause worry about what will happen when this new law is passed. And, isn't it telling that Labour MP’s could not guarantee that a work like Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses would not fall foul of such a law? Sixteen years ago Rushdie was protected from wackos who threatened his life. That these wackos might one day be able to prosecute him themselves should send a shiver down our spines.

Freedom of speech means absolutely nothing if it doesn’t include the offensive, the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative. As Gareth Crossman of Liberty says, “In a democracy, criminalizing even the most unpalatable, illiberal and offensive speech should be approached with extreme caution.”

Unfortunately our government is throwing caution to the wind, and a bag over the head of liberty.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Liberties Going Up In Smoke

Liberties Going Up In Smoke

I’m a non-smoker and I have a few things to say about the imminent smoking ban. I really hate the horrible, festering, stinking, choking, foul, sickening smell. I refer not to cigarette smoke, but rather to the stale ideas billowing from the addled minds of the anti-smoke lobby which, seemingly, is going to get some kind of smoking ban in the next few months. They are merely a part of a wider do-gooder culture which makes strident efforts to dictate how we should live. They’re telling us: “you WILL be healthier (whether you want to be or not). You WILL do those things that are good for you (whether you wish to do them or not). You WILL live according to the dictates of us who know better.”

If Northern Ireland is to follow some of the proposals on the table for England and Wales then we are going to be faced with a bucketful of absurdities and nonsense. First of all, smoking might be completely outlawed only in bars that prepare and serve food. This despite the fact that the main reason given for the ban is the protection of health, and the complete lack of evidence that the presence of smoke AND food increases your risk of cancer even more than just smoke. Secondly, a government proposal calls for what is effectively a Smoke Police. Government inspectors would be able to swoop without warning on premises and take samples of the air to check if illicit smoking has taken place. Thirdly, premises would be obliged to post up signs which would include a hotline that people can call if they see any prohibited lighting-up going unpunished by the proprietor. Lost in a frenzy of legislative madness the government even proposes to ban smoking within a metre of the bar despite admitting that “there is no evidence that this would provide any health benefit.” Apparently since most establishments already have this policy of not smoking at the bar it may as well be legislated for. Indeed. And since most people eat dinner between 5pm and 7pm, perhaps a law enforcing it?

Pushing the minutiae of a ban to one side, despite how amusing such a discussion would be, why a ban at all?

The “better health” card is always played in an attempt to convince us. Professor Patrick Johnston, an expert in cancer (unfortunately not an expert in either civil liberties or the understanding of fundamental concepts) informs us that he “would like to see a smoking ban [because it] would help wipe out one third of all cancers in 12 years [and] I cannot think of another single initiative that would achieve that.”

Super. Smashing. Great. Kick-you-in-the-balls-fantastic. Lets say we wipe out one third of all cancers in 12 years, what then? People don’t just stop dying. The last time I reflected on the human condition it was a given that we’re not immortal, and I don’t think much has changed recently. People may stop dying of cancer, but they have to die of something. Maybe more will die of heart disease. So, what next? Do we ban fatty foods and make 2 hours daily exercise compulsory for all so as to drastically cut the numbers of people dying of heart disease, simply because Prof Johnston and others like him “cannot think of another single initiative that would achieve that.” These people are missing a blatantly obvious fact: we’re all going to die somewhere, sometime and of some cause. We can legislate until the cows come home but all we end up doing is legislating our lives away. Lets face it almost every week there’s some new amazing super-duper discovery to add to our ever growing “it’ll increase your chances of getting cancer” list – everything from red meat to sun bathing to under arm deodorants. We simply cannot legislate our way to immortality and it is foolish to try. Now, perhaps Prof Johnston will retort that this measure will increase the lifespan of a great many people. But, so what if something “adds X number of years to your life.” You don’t those extra years when you’re in your 20’s and 30’s and shagging like a bull. You get them at the end of your life when your pissing yourself in a nursing home smacked-out on some mind-numbing drug.

The framers and supporters of a smoking ban have a typical shaky grasp of some basic concepts: like freedom, liberty, private property, and public place. They claim to support the freedom to smoke in private but not “in a public place.” To them, however, “public place” includes bars, restaurants and clubs. The stark fact of the matter is that, with the exception of government buildings, none of the places listed for a smoking ban are “public” at all. Virtually all bars, restaurants, clubs, and the majority of workplaces, are private property just as much as someone’s house is, and the government wouldn’t dream of banning smoking in the privacy of one’s own home (well, not yet, perhaps in time).

I am therefore completely against a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants for the same reason as I am against a ban on smoking in one’s own home. Government has no business whatsoever in making such a law with respect to private property. The owner of the pub or restaurant in question should decide, just like the owner of a house decides, whether his private property is smoking or non-smoking, and people can then decide whether they want to visit or not. Sound radical? It’s called individual choice and responsibility. It probably sounds like a new idea to those of you who are reading this blog from Planet Control-Freak. But the concept runs like this: If people don't like to be in a smoky environment then they don't have to go to a smokers house or to a smoke-friendly restaurant. Instead, non-smoking customers continue to go to such places and by so doing they consent to sitting in a smoky environment, as do the members of staff who work there. When you apply to work in a pub or a bar you know exactly the type of environment that is. You have a choice, you make the choice and you live with the consequences of that choice. But freedom scares too many people who seemingly prefer to be dictated to by the control freaks who wish to run our lives.

Another major argument for this ban is that the results of smoking - disease and damage to countless body parts, many of which we never even knew existed - are putting a drain on the National Health Service. Those who argue this way claim that smoking is not a private matter, because everyone pays for the NHS and the service is being drained by smokers. Rather than seeing this as an argument in favour of a smoking ban we should see it as an argument against the NHS or as an argument in favour of government control in many more aspects of our lives than advocates of this argument care to admit. Aside from smoking there are thousands of self-inflicted diseases, disorders, injuries and ailments. The most obvious examples are sports injuries and ailments that result from sexual intercourse, alcoholism or obesity. These too are self-inflicted and drain NHS resources. If we are to have an NHS we need to bite the bullet and treat all people on it no matter how they have been injured or made sick. That’s simply the price we pay for it. But, a system of private care would be so much better. It would mean that each and every individual is responsible for their own choices and the consequences of those choices. Diseases caused by smoking are therefore of no issue to anyone but the smoker in question, since no one but the smoker must pick up the tab for his treatment if he or she has no medical insurance. In fact, a private system of health care might be better at making people quit smoking, since the insurance premiums for a smoker might be far greater or even difficult to get at all.

The problem with those who have been arguing against the ban on smoking is that they have thus far been trying to do so on the terms laid down by the anti-smoking lobby: namely, through the use of rights language. Non-smokers, we are told, have a right to breathe clean air, so smoking should be banned insofar as it violates that right. On the other side we are told that smoking is a civil liberty and thus smokers have a right to smoke. As long as the debate continues in these terms the anti-smoking lobby will always remain ahead. No-one can ever be convinced that smoking is a “right.” Smokers can’t just smoke anywhere they please. They certainly have no right to smoke in my house. Nor do they have a right to smoke 3 inches from my face. And, since smoking does indeed cause a number of diseases, no one will be convinced that one person has a right to give another person cancer through their habit. So, people will intuitively side with the group who argues against this. However, although it is less obvious, non-smokers have no universal right to breathe clean air either. If I am a chain-smoker you have no right to force me on pain of legal penalty to stop smoking when you come to my house on the grounds that you have a right to breathe clean air. If you decide to enter my house then you do so at your own choosing and can’t be said to have any right to breathe clean air. Since a pub or restaurant is private property then you cannot be said to have a right to breathe clean air if you voluntarily enter a smoky place. You waive such rights the moment you walk through the door.

With the misuse of language and utilisation of conceptual blurs society’s puritans will continue their fight to clean up society. It’s a real pity they don’t start with the garbage filling their heads and emanating from their exceptionally large mouths. Instead they utilise such garbage to kindle the flames in which our liberties are going up in smoke.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)