Level Seven - Challenging Christian Thinking

THE MOUNTAIN WITHIN
Date: 12/11/2008

FAITH AND BUSINESS
Do They Mix?
Date: 30/6/2008

FAITH AND HEALTH
Is There a Link?
Date: 8/4/2008

Is Religion Good For Women?
Date: 31/1/2008

Is God “Green”?
Date: 27/11/2007

Nobody Knows
Date: 5, 6 & 7 Oct 2007

"Faith and Politics"
Do They Mix?
Date: 5/7/2007

“LET MY PEOPLE GO”
Date: 3/4/2007

How to avoid another Enron
Date: 30/1/2007

DISCRIMINATION
How Do We Fight It? Is Litigation the Answer?
Date: 17/10/2006

The Terminally Ill Life
What Value?
Date: 27/9/2006

Da Vinci Decoded
Date: 28/6/2006

The Terminally Ill Life - What Value?

Earlier in May this year the House of Lords was presented with the bill for "assisted dying for the terminally Ill". The bill raised a media storm on the right to assisted suicide abroad or in the UK.

Level Seven decided to explore the issue in the "right to die" debate. Nomazulu Dlamini, Special registrar in paediatric neurology, chaired the panel and the informal debate which was held on September 27 In the Council Chambers of the Royal College of Physicians.

While the aim was not to find all the answers, the evening did bring a lot of factual and experiential information to the guests. One young lady expressed that she appreciated the depth of information presented but found herself agreeing with all the speakers even though they presented different views on the matter.

Ms Cleo Dlomo a nurse Specialist, with the Macmillian Cancer Support, opened the evenings debate with explaining that "Palliative care extends more widely than pain relief or administration of medicine" (WHO) to cover the physical, psychological, social and spiritual impact that a life –threatening condition has on patient.". She stressed that it is never an easy decision and that an assessment and discussion of patients’ need for physical, psychological, social, spiritual and financial support should always be undertaken.

Dr. Margaret Branthwaite a retired barrister and former consultant clinician argued for the "right to die". Her arguments were that there is a clinical need and demand for assisted dying and that is manifest by what some patients do now. She continued to argue how factual arguments against assisted dying are hypothetical; they are defeasible on the grounds of logic, and that Moral arguments against assisted dying are not amenable to any universally-accepted resolution; they are a matter for individual opinion.

Dr Branthwaite concluded that Legislation should therefore be permissive rather than prescriptive - not to create a right (and thus a corresponding duty) but rather to allow assistance to be given to, and by, those who do not find compassionate killing offensive.

The Final panel member was Dr. John Wyatt, Professor in Neonatal paediatric. Who took the opposite stand to Dr. Branthwaite.

In his presentation he argued that "The prohibition of the killing of the innocent is part of the glue which binds us together as a society… And therefore The prevention of suicide expresses society’s our commitment to protect and value all human life."

According to Dr. Wyatts presentation, "the legalisation of assisted suicide would lead to major changes in the practice of medicine. Euthanasia or suicide would become a "treatment option" which would have to be discussed and considered alongside other option".

One of his concluding point were that practically this could lead to many elderly and disabled people are worried that they may become a burden to others. Once euthanasia is seen as a "treatment option" then many will feel an implied moral "duty" to take this option in order to spare their relatives or friends.

Several guests expressed that the evening’s debate had exceeded their expectations as the topic is of such a serious nature they found themselves surprised as to how much they enjoyed the evening.

Where as the majority of guests had not come to a conclusion on the issue the debate had challenged their knowledge and viewpoint and given a lot of food for thought, only one of the guests expressed" I knew where I stood on the matter before the debate and this debate has strengthened in my viewpoint with more factual information".