Nazis used ‘Assisted Dying’ to justify killing 300,000 disabled people – Do we want to follow that path?” asks Rachael Tearney.
Starmer’s government seems to have a never-ending supply of disastrous economic policies, as well as morally questionable ones. Not least among these is the idea of pushing through legislation to legalise what is now being called ‘Assisted Dying.’
As is often the case with Socialist secular policy, much effort is put into persuading people and swaying opinion in favour of their ideology. The concept of euthanasia, as it was once known, has been circulating for decades. Programs were aired as early as 1995 (Death on Request) to make the idea more palatable to the general public. Socialist think tanks have employed all kinds of guilt-tripping and emotional manipulation, arguing it is ‘kind’ to let people die. In today’s world, we all know how important it is to ‘Be Kind.’ It has become a mantra for moralistic living, as though it’s a new trend, as though kindness never existed before the Twitter (now X) hashtag was invented.
Socialist think tanks have employed all kinds of guilt-tripping and emotional manipulation, arguing it is ‘kind’ to let people die.
Euthanasia as a political policy failed to gain traction, so it has been rebranded as ‘Assisted Dying,’ which, of course, fits much more snugly with the #BeKind ethos. After all, you’re assisting someone, you’re helping them, you’re carrying out a service to humanity. In efforts to convince the public, the analogy of animals is often used: “We don’t let animals suffer, so why do we let humans suffer?” This draws a parallel between humans and animals. While this analogy may align with secularist and humanist beliefs, it does not reflect the Christian philosophy upon which our country is built. Christianity does not present animals and humans as the same or equal.
While St. Francis of Assisi helped foster a culture of compassion for animals — which is, of course, beautiful and necessary in a civilised world — caring for our beloved pets brings us immense joy. However, a fundamental difference remains between humans and animals. Genesis 2:7 reveals that difference: “And God breathed divine breath into the body of dust, and it became a soul.” Humans have souls. Or, as C.S. Lewis so brilliantly put it, “You have a body: you are a soul.”
Forgive the morbidity of the next passage, but the Left are forcing us to debate death.
When someone dies, their physical body remains here on earth, but the person is gone. What is it that has left? The soul? The essence of the human, that mysterious element of life that only the imagined Dr. Frankenstein has attempted to recreate. Scientists may have cloned a sheep, and perhaps it’s just a matter of time before they try with humans, but the point remains: according to Christian doctrine, animals do not have souls.
At what point do we become a stack of documents, reviewed and certified as ‘better off dead’?
For this reason, humans are entirely unique compared to any other life form on earth. We are made in ‘God’s image.’ There is something extra in humans — something divine.
The beauty of life and civilisation lies in our ability to recognise and value that divine element within each human being.
The Nazis, under their National Socialist regime, had a policy of ‘Assisted Dying’—Aktion T4, which led to the killing of 300,000 disabled people, including those who were senile, mentally ill, epileptic, or had Down syndrome. Do we really want to base our societal advances on the evils of such a doctrine?
The ultimate question remains: who decides when a human is beyond care? At what point do we become a stack of documents, reviewed and certified as ‘better off dead’? Are we really prepared to leave that decision in the hands of a few people in ever more infrequently elected positions?
Or should the value of human life, with its divine and irreplaceable essence, always remain beyond the reach of policy makers and political trends?
Follow Rachel at @WritesRachael
