Archbishop Tutu on Assisted Death: A Questionable View

by Letters Editor · Published November 8, 2016 · Updated November 7, 2016

From: Henry R Sylvester, Cape Town – The recent views expressed by the Anglican Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu in support for euthanasia is not a new event in the life of the Church of England.

In 1913 legislators in England proposed the eugenics legislation before parliament. Two primates of the Church of England, the archbishops of Canterbury and York, endorsed and supported that bill which was later withdrawn by Winston Churchill who switched to the conservative side.

In 1924 Anglican Bishop Barnes of Birmingham, in his publication The Eugenics Review, offered reasons why Christians should support the selecting-out of all people who are mentally or physically defective.

After spending much of his life fighting for the abolition of the death penalty, it is mind-boggling that Archbishop Tutu has been converted by a convicted crusader such as Sean Davidson, who hopes to have his conscience soothed should the law of the country allow assisted suicide, which is a euphemism for assisted murder. The legalisation of assisted suicide will nullify the Hippocratic oath taken by caregivers and physicians who ought to heal, preserve, extend and make life comfortable for the sick and infirm.

Archbishop Tutu’s support for assisted suicide, a crime of choice, will make him complicit in the harm and death of partakers in this heinous exercise that parades falsely as “mercy” and “dignity”.

When the killing of the unborn was legalised in the United States the 1970s, “stringent” requirements were mandated. Sadly, the killing of the unborn — whose rights have been dismissed by many countries including our own — is carried out on demand as a luxury requirement in most cases. There can certainly be no guarantee that assisted suicide will not follow the same path and be used as a means to clearing beds in hospitals and care institutions for the disabled and mentally challenged, and “rid” families of individuals who are an obstacle to their freedom.

The official Dutch government report on the practice of euthanasia, conducted in 1991, reported the following: 400 doctors assisted patients with a means to kill; 1040 patients were killed without their consent or knowledge, and 4942 doctors actively administered drug overdoses without patient consent.

Individuals who for all intents and purposes have the duty to end a life on request become medical executioners and criminals, because the practice does not require a knowledge of medicine, but a knowledge of how to do harm, which is the basis of every premeditated deadly and life-threatening activity.

When a person loses their natural faculties and function, it does not follow that their dignity is lost. It is rather the so-called carer who questions the dignity of the other through their subjective arbitrary views based on the uncalled-for burden and nuisance their loved ones have become in their lives.

Family situations and conditions that are devoid of empathy, patience and a complete love for the weak and suffering do propel family members to “coach” the sufferer into considering and agreeing to assisted suicide. When someone who suffers say they want to die, they don’t necessarily indicate that they want to end their life. What they do cry for is patience and merciful love and caring from their family members.

Regrettably, faith-based institutions and leaders such as Archbishop Tutu have become the converts of secularism with its relative subjective views that defy sacred scripture, human biology and natural truths. Personal rights in essence have become a “I say so” legal prescriptive.