What is in Kelvin's Head?

Scottish Episcopal Kalendar 2024

02/12/2023

For years now, I’ve produced a Kalendar for the Scottish Episcopal Church with all the bible readings set out for the year.

This year’s Kalendar is available online so that anyone can download it and print it out for themselves.
It is available right here: Kalendar 2024

Anyone who would like to make a donation because they enjoy the Kalendar so much and want to encourage me to keep doing it is welcome to do so via paypal.

Alternatively, anyone who wishes to purchase a printed copy can do so here: Buy a Kalendar

8 responses to “End of Life (aka Death)”

Bob Faser

29/05/2015

Kelvin, as always, you’ve made some important comments here, particularly given your high-profile stance on marriage equality and related issues. Some ultraconservative types try to convey the impression that all issues related to sex, marriage, families, and bioethics are a “package deal”. One either takes a conservative stance on the lot, or a progressive stance on the lot. Your ability to discern here on an issue-by-issue basis is refreshing.

Another important thing is your question of “Who would actually benefit from lives being shortened at will? The patient is not the only person affected by a death, nor the only possible person to derive any “benefit” from life being cut short.” I honestly believe that it’s not only in Agatha Christie novels where a desperate person may be led to shorten the life of a old, ill family member for their own material gain.

Reply
Beth Routledge

29/05/2015

I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.

In medical ethics this is called the Doctrine of Double Effect and is a recognised thing.

Reply
John O’Leary

30/05/2015

You show both profound good sense and Christian sensibility here, Kelvin. I hope that attempt at a seat in the British parliament won’t be your last. There is such a great need for your voice in a much more public arena than a blog, or a microphone in a church.

Reply
Anne O’Connell

30/05/2015

A beautifully nuanced, and well constructed piece on a vexed argument. Thank you.

Reply
Bob Chapman

30/05/2015

“I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.”

It is all about intent. If the drugs are given to relieve pain, then it is the correct thing to do. If the drugs are given to shorten life, then it is the wrong thing to do.

At no time should medical people feel compelled to keep a person alive simply to avoid a lawsuit or a criminal charge. There are examples of this happening in the US.

At no time should treatment be given against the patient’s wishes.

And, you can’t expect a one-size-fit-all approach to always be satisfying here.

Reply
Pam

30/05/2015

This is a sensitive subject. I can understand that people facing a terminal illness and in great pain may want to have control over their predicament. I agree that better quality palliative care would relieve much anxiety over this issue.

Life is precious and should be treated as such. There’s too much potential for a lessening of the sacredness of life if euthanasia is legalised.

Agree with your take on this issue Kelvin.

Reply
Rosemary Sloan

30/05/2015

It isn’t just about not dying in pain. It is also about living in pain. And about living with no dignity or control or choice. That bothers me just as much.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  30/05/2015
  
  And can you imagine that it might be better to tackle the problem of living in pain directly rather than presuming that battle will always be lost and instead giving people the opportunity to die, Rosemary?
  
  Reply