THERE’S A LOT OF MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT
There has been a great deal of attention in the Media this week to Ray Gosling, the Nottingham-based broadcaster. His account of his own involvement in a so-called ‘mercy-killing’ has sparked yet more debate about Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. It is a strange business.
There are three particular aspects of this story which give cause for concern.
Mr. Gosling was no doubt seeking to promote the cause of voluntary euthanasia (or assisted dying) and assisted suicide which is so much in the spotlight at this time. However it is really something of an own goal. He has over-egged the cake by his claim that doctors frequently used morphine to hasten death. The arguments were effectively blown apart by Dr. Victoria Wheatley on the BBC’s Today programme. In an interview with an astonished Evan Davies, who was unable to maintain the BBC’s pro-euthanasia line, she listed three myths:
She actually went on to argue that the responsible use of end-of-life medication doesn’t so much shorten life as mean that patients tend to live longer and die more peaceful deaths.
In addition to the issue of end of life morality, there is also the question of the conduct of the BBC. A cross-party group of MP’s recently accused the BBC of showing “persistent bias” in favour of euthanasia. Over 20 MP’s have now signed an Early Day Motion which accuses the BBC of conducting a “multi-million pound campaign” to promote euthanasia. The MP’s also charge the BBC with ignoring the rights of disabled people. The motion says that the BBC has disregarded the fact that “every disability rights group in the UK is opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia”. Now in this issue with Ray Gosling they deliberately failed to notify the Police of a possible serious crime. It is almost as if to make a Television programme puts you in the same category as a Priest taking confession - you have no duty to report what you know to the appropriate authority. It is moral anarchy. They, with other broadcasters, are also frequently accused of bias across a wide range of moral issues and in particular of anti-Christian emphasis.
Alongside this we must put the increasing number of decisions of the Police themselves and the Director of Public Prosecution not to proceed with criminal charges when a clear crime has been committed because the issue is not in the ‘public interest’. (Those who read the CFL bulletin will know how serious vandalism was not prosecuted on that basis.) The fact that there is legislation that defines crime and should be enforced seems to be disregarded. What is meant by ‘public interest’? Generally it means that the general public would not approve or find benefit in a particular course of action. So even justice is subject to popular opinion. That is, of course, the logical position if relativism rules in a society. There are no fixed standards and there are no moral boundaries. “Every man does what he feels right in his own eyes.”
So if we have biased media and a justice system that has no fixed standards, then we do not really have justice or fairness in our society. This is why there have been such dramatic changes in public perception on so many issues. They are not discussed fairly and so people are developing their understanding on misrepresentations. A relativistic society is not more open but more likely to become very restrictive indeed. Standards and boundaries enable real freedom of thought and conduct.
What can we say about all of this? Simply that this is what the Church faced in the 1st century and triumphed by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit. We need to be aware of these trends so that we can present the truth in the most understandable way. But we do not need to ring our hands in despair. God must either judge our nation or send a Revival. We must pray for the latter and work to promote the Gospel in such a sad world.