A forthright article by Graham Adams at NOTED has been brought to my attention.  Written about six months ago, it is a very valuable summary of where the End-of-Life Choice conversation has been subverted by those who are opposed.

A most telling point for me was this quotation from the Roman Catholic submission to the Health Committee:

“Religious arguments have their own validity and rationale within a particular faith-based framework. However, we recognise - 

(i) they will not be compelling for persons who do not share our faith perspective and 

(ii) they are not sufficient for shaping public policy in a secular society. 

For this reason our submission will focus on arguments of a social, cultural, ethical and philosophical nature that can be understood and appealed to by all persons irrespective of their religious background.”

On the one hand, this looks pretty realistic as well as unexpected. The views of any church are not given a lot of weight when the nation is considering change even in ethical and moral matters. But Adams points out that   "...anyone who has a deep religious conviction that rejects any human interference with what they consider to be a natural life span ordained by God is not putting all their cards on the table if they don’t explicitly argue that position. Because if they did, they would have to admit that there is absolutely no evidence that would change their minds, no matter how compelling."

I am really interested that the Catholics apparently down-played their religious convictions in the submissions process.  That view is pretty much imitated by other mainline churches who have been conspicuously quiet or cooperatively indecisive during the whole debate. 

Well, I need to state that I have what Adams calls "deep religious convictions" in this matter. I am very clear that my advocacy for some form of end-of-life choice for certain people arises out of those faith convictions. Let's get on with the conversation.