Should the Right to Die be a Human Right?

December 10, 2008

Today is Human Rights day, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To commemmorate this event, the society intended to have a presentation and discussion on the principles behind human rights, but the speaker had to cancel so we called it off. I noticed all the front pages this morning shared the theme of assisted suicide, except the Daily Express which decided to lead on house prices and ‘the bounce factor’ (apparently someone went on Strictly Come Dancing without a bra, woop de doo – also covered in the Mail’s ‘Femail’ section, which I notice is full of fashion ‘news’ and crap about TV – is that all they think women are interested in? Prats), so I decided to link it in with the theme of human rights. Here‘s a link to the Guardian story on it, which has links to related stories for wider interest.

People who own TV’s might know that tonight there’s some kind of show on the issue which is supposed to be showing the assisted death of Dr Craig Ewart in 2006. It’s a difficult issue, some have already slated it as ‘macabre voyeurism’, but I disagree. The debate over assisted suicide is a very important one and I think this programme goes a long way to discuss the topic. If the footage of the death is appropriate then it goes a long way to raise the consciousness of the issue, showing it as a source of peace for some people rather than some kind of devaluation of human life. The interest in the documentary seems to me to have very little to do with the death itself, more with the emotional issues surrounding it. It does seem a shame that the media focus is on the footage of the death rather than the debate which it informs, and that I do agree is a kind of voyeurism which I don’t approve of, but I don’t think people are going to watch this just because they may see someone die.

The main argument used against euthanasia and assisted suicide is that it would open the back door to people being killed against their will. Gordon Brown today used a similar argument that he didn’t want anyone feeling pressured into assisted suicide, or feel that it’s the expected thing to do. These to me are separate issues. If someone wants to die with dignity in their own time, they should have the right to do so, but it is up to those who will regulate any such action to ensure it is not abused. Potential abuse is not a good reason to ban euthanasia, it should be an issue with euthanasia itself. I also don’t think people are going to think assisted suicide is the expected thing to do. There are plenty of people with physically debilitating conditions who do not choose to die, and it is a very small minority who do, but those people should not have their choice taken away from them just because of a fear of abuse, the implementation of the law should prevent that. We own our own bodies and are masters over our own lives, so we should be able to choose if we no longer wish to live. An inability to take your own life should not hinder such a right. I think it should come under the right to life.

Humanist Ethics

February 13, 2008

Last night, the Humanist Society held its Big Event of the Semester (BEotS), a panel discussion on Humanist Ethics in the 21st Century, with:

  • Roger Redondo, a neuroscientist and president of the Humanist Society
  • Sue England, a human rights lawyer and women’s rights expert
  • Patrick Harvie MSP, a humanist member of the Scottish Greens Parliamentary Party
  • June Maxwell, leader of the Humanist Academy, who stepped in at the eleventh hour to replace another speaker who fell ill

Each of the speakers made a 20 minute talk or so taking their own spin on the question, “why do we need evolving humanist ethics in the 21st Century?” Roger concentrated on how we know that morality is wired into each of our brains genetically. There is evidence of a sense of justice in chimpanzees, and the ‘Trolley Problems‘ show us that morals are to a large extent universal, regardless of social conditioning.

The other speakers spoke more about humanist ethics in action. Sue England’s talk was particularly interesting because she led with the statement that religious discrimination is nothing whatsoever like other types of discrimination, in that you can’t easily change your sex or your race or get rid of a disability, but you can very easily change your religion or get rid of it completely. She then went on to show how religious organisations are gaining ground and getting privileged consultation in the EU, exemption from taxation and widely in Europe in such places as Germany, the Church gets money directly from pay packets like a second “voluntary” income tax. She also claimed that the European Convention on Human Rights mentions nothing about religion, but the Human Rights Act 1998 had section 13 put into it by Blair, which means courts have to respect the rights of a person to freedom of thought and religion. I’ve since been and checked this out, and article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights does outline freedom of thought and religion, so I think she must have got her wires crossed there.

Patrick Harvie’s talk was also very interesting. He concentrated on his time as the shadow for the Communities Portfolio, during which he was lobbied by all kinds of religious groups, and how religious groups get privileged in all kinds of ways in politics as well as in law. It tied in quite well with what Sue was saying. He finished by saying emphatically that a fixed moral worldview can’t adapt to new ethical problems such as stem cell research, abortion and climate change. We can’t just look in the Bible and ask “what did Jesus say about nanotechnology?”

June Maxwell’s talk was understandably a little less well jointed, since she had no time to prepare it. She concentrated on education, and how an evolving humanist ethic taught in schools would encourage children to be more responsible, and to think more about their actions rather than just not doing something because they’ve been told to.

She also claimed that Abraham, Moses and even Jesus never existed, which was more than a little controversial with 2 of the members of the Edinburgh Creation Group who came along for the show, missing their own event which was happening at the same time. She justified this by saying that the pagan gods that were celebrated on the 25th of December bore startling resemblances with Jesus, citing Attis, Osiris, Dionysus and Mithras as examples. I’ve checked a few of these out and the theory doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. Mithras was worshipped after Jesus died, so if anything he was a copy of Jesus, and I can only find very tenuous similarities between Jesus and Dionysus. Lots of people know the links between Osiris and Christianity, but since the legend of Osiris is so old (about 2400 BC), I think it’s more likely to have affected the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah than the legends surrounding Jesus himself. I think it’s more likely that he did exist as a person, but that he was exaggerated and lied about by his followers in order to fulfil the OT prophecies. I’ve heard a theory on my local radio phone-in show that Jesus was a drug dealer (I am from Liverpool), but I’ll leave that for now.

There was also a lot of controversy during the Q&A session when someone raised the issue of faith schools. The question-asker said that she’d been to a faith secondary school and she was always taught to be open minded, and she was taught about other faiths as well. June then replied (very passionately, I might add, she was almost shouting by the time she finished) by taking the example of the story of Abraham, which teaches obedience, but says nothing about the right of his son to live. I don’t know when June was last in a faith school, but I spent 14 years in the faith school system and I only ever learned about that story when I read the Bible in my own time, it wasn’t taught as part of the curriculum. Generally speaking my school was very liberal, it taught evolution and everyone I know believed in it, and I came out with a good sense of morals and a good education. There were certain problems which I won’t go into, but it certainly wasn’t the brainwashing zombie-factory June seems to think they are.

This entry’s getting far too long and I’ve had nothing to eat yet today (in my Chinese oral exam this morning I apparently told the examiner that my dad’s a professional socialist, instead of a social worker), so I’ll wrap it up with a comment. I was a little disappointed. I was hoping this would be something I could point to in the future and say “look, humanism isn’t just about bashing religion”, but religion was a topic which came up far too much throughout the evening. Sue England’s talk was not much more than arguing against religious practices in Europe, and the only talk that didn’t have religion at its centre was Roger’s, who I’m pretty sure didn’t talk about it at all.

All in all though, it was a good event and I’m glad I went, even if it did mean I didn’t do enough revision for my Chinese exam.

Human Rights Day

December 10, 2007

Happy Human Rights Day everyone! Admittedly I only realised when I walked past the stall outside the Library (actually did some revision today, w00t!), but still it deserves marking in some way.

Remember, Human Rights aren’t just those annoying laws that stop us killing off all the foaming-at-the-mouth bible bashing loonies in a glorious mass cull, you have them too! So do your bit and mark Human Rights Day in your own special way. And by ‘mark’, I don’t mean like dogs mark their territory. Save that for Easter.