Assisted Dying: A Euphemism For Killing?

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 27 November 2024 Cabinet ministers should not impose their religious beliefs on others in their objections to assisted dying, a leading proponent of changing the law has said. In response to an intervention from Shabana Mahmood, Charlie Falconer, a Labour peer and ally of Keir Starmer, said the justice secretary had “religious and spiritual reasons” for being opposed to assisted dying. “I think she’s motivated – and I respect this – by her religious beliefs. They shouldn’t be imposed on everybody else,” Lord Falconer told Sky News. Mahmood had said there was a risk of going down a “slippery slope towards death on demand”, as MPs prepare to vote on a bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people in England and Wales this week. In a letter to her constituents, Mahmood, who is the most senior Muslim politician in Britain, said she was “profoundly concerned” by the legislation and that “the state should never offer death as a service”. Falconer said Mahmood’s argument was “completely wrong”, although she had “religious and spiritual reasons why she believes completely in the sanctity of life”. Shabana Mahmood Should Not Impose Her Religious Beliefs On Others, Says Peer On this (moral) issue, both Shabana Mahmood and Charlie Falconer are right. When should euthanasia or 'mercy killing' be resorted to? This is a classic 'Hamletian Dilemma' of to be or not to be nature, a moral conundrum that has no definite and universal solution. Law, with its matter-of-fact approach, can never fathom the moral and emotional aspect involved in it. Let nature take its course. End of a person can and should never be expedited. It's every individual's existential right to live and the state has no right or power to deprive him/her of this inalienable right. Though there have been instances of mercy killings in the west, there're so many conflicting views regarding its promulgation. Since state, particularly medical science, is viewed as a protector of an individual's life, it's rather against the spirit of its role as a saviour, if mercy killing is practised even in 'the rarest of rare cases' when the chances of any improvement in the condition of a patient is unanimously ruled out. The ancient Greek societies believed to have practised Euthanasia (Thanatos: God of death) long before it became an international ethical issue. Socrates may have been given a cup of hemlock to drink as the death penalty, but other Greek philosophers also drank it to die as a 'ritualistic Harakiri' (also known as Seppuku) like the way vanquished Japanese generals stabbed themselves to avoid ignominy after defeats. Even if the sufferer wants euthanasia for putting an end to his/her wretched existence, mercy killing cannot be brought in. Moreover, medical science never gives up and it ought not to give up. There have been cases of virtually dead patients getting resurrected like an Australian youngster, who got back his memory after 23 years following a near fatal car accident in Adelaide. This happened a few years ago. His parents also wanted euthanasia to be resorted to as they thought that his condition was irretrievable. Most of the advanced countries are abolishing capital punishment because it's against the very basic right of an individual to live and state cannot take it away under any pretext. Moreover, those who're in favour of mercy killing, are more often than not detached spectators. I also advocated euthanasia and was very vocal in its favour but when my friend, teacher and mentor Dr Zaifa Ashraf implored doctors to let her die as the pain was excruciating, I along with the British doctors at Marsden Cancer Hospital, London had to dishonour her last wish because we knew that despite her end being inevitable, she was with us, albeit for a few days. But even those few days were far better than her death, which's the final departure. The thought that a person once dead, never comes back to be with us is the most overwhelming argument against euthanasia. To quote Asadullah Khan Ghalib, 'Naghma-E-Gham Ko Bhi Ae Dil Ghaneemat Jaaniye/Besada Ho Jayega Ye Saaz-E-Hasti Ek Din' (Thank your stars that you've at least the song of pain/ One day the instrument of life will have no music at all). Jab Tak Saans Hai Tab Tak Aas Hai (So long as you're alive, there's a semblance of hope). To quote a psychologist to put the whole issue in perspective, " Euthanasia is a mild death punishment. And I'm against death-rap." Though I personally neither approve nor disapprove of 'assisted dying,' I've a feeling that it's a euphemism for killing. However 'good' and 'bona-fide' our intentions may be towards the sufferer, who're we to decide how and when the person should shuffle off the mortal coil? Let the Grim Reaper perform this grim task. To repeat Shabana Mahmood's concern, "The state should never offer death as a service.” It'd be a macabre legislation. Moreover, many states will have recourse to it to 'legally' get rid of their old citizens, perceived as liabilities to the states. ---- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/assisted-dying-euphemism-killing/d/133832 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism