Anthony Egan

Should the state support the \'right to die\'?

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (hereafter E/PAS) is a practice with a long history. It was a frequent occurrence in the Ancient World, despite the prohibitions of the Hippocratic Oath (which had no legal standing and was supported by a minority of Greco-Roman physicians). It was condemned as murder by the Christian community and prohibited in Christian Europe (though – like abortion – was no doubt practised secretly). Strong support and advocacy for E/PAS re-emerged in the 19th century in Europe and North America. The first attempts to legalise it, in a number of states in the USA, were defeated in the early 1900s, though voluntary euthanasia societies advocating for reform of existing laws proliferated there and throughout Europe. 1 Although not legal, cases brought before the courts – particularly in the USA, Britain and The Netherlands – were treated with remarkable leniency. Today, E/PAS has been legalised in a few countries and is treated with leniency or even a ‘blind eye’ in many others. It is the subject of fierce legal and moral debate. 2 Religions are divided over whether it can ever be justified. Secular physicians, politi cians and ethicists are also engaged in the conflict on both sides. While support for E/PAS is strongest in the north, with surveys showing support ranging from 57% (USA) to 92% (The Netherlands), talk of introducing E/PAS legislation in South Africa shows that it has become a global issue. With the ever-present financial and logistical pressures on the public health service, particularly in developing countries like South Africa, E/PAS takes on a new dimension that gives the question added urgency. In this paper we ask whether states should support ‘right to die’ practices. In particular we examine: • whether E/PAS should be legalised in certain circumstances; and • whether physicians in the public health service should be required to practise E/PAS if it is legalised.

Does a Real Albert Nolan Need Don Cupitt? A Response to Ronald Nicolson

In this paper, in response to Nicolson’s claim that South African liberation theology is non-realist – or at least is non-realist in its language – I suggest that Albert Nolan’s important book God in South Africa is not based on such an “exotic” philosophical basis but is a reflection using the populist Marxism of the anti-apartheid struggle of the 1980s. The clue here is Nolan’s use of the Colonialism of a Special Type thesis, an integral part of ANC and Communist Party discourse since the 1960s. Nolan himself has described his work as “historical materialist” in its philosophical language. Such a position seems far removed from non-realism, although they certainly sound similar in Nolan’s God-language. I then examine non-realist theologian Don Cupitt’s model of “militant religious humanism” (from his Life-Lines) and conclude that a non-realist liberation or political theology along these lines suffers too much from a sense of relativism or absurdity for it to be of use to those who use liberation theology. From this I try to suggest how a non-realist liberation theology might be developed. In the end, however, I conclude that though such a theology could be constructed, it would probably not be effective: liberation theology requires a real God who really sides with the poor.

The paradox of South African liberalism

Vigne, Randolph (1997) Liberals Against Apartheid: A History of the Liberal Party of South Africa, 1953–1968 (London and New Yoik: Macmillan / St Martins Press).