Public opinion surveys in numerous countries indicate consistently that around three-quarters of those polled favour assisted suicide, dignified dying, mercy killing, medical aid in dying or other euphemisms for euthanasia dreamed up by the enemy. As we know, questionnaires tend to be couched in the sort of terminology likely to elicit an emotional response. Respondents are denied the opportunity to explore the issue in depth. All too few, it seems, know about life-affirming websites such as MercatorNet that could help them do so.
The masses are not getting the pro-life message. They have been persuaded through subtle brainwashing by an acquiescent media that a ‘right to die’ based on individual autonomy transcends the right to life – a self-evidently absurd proposition but one that has taken root in the public mind. Let us consider two practical problems arising from this misconception. The first concerns life insurance. To my knowledge, all insurance companies exclude suicide from their life cover. Assisted suicide is still suicide. Beneficiaries of a deceased’s estate hoping to profit from his death would therefore be sadly disappointed.
Second, you could possibly argue that the person who assisted the suicide was technically guilty of murder, thereby relieving the deceased of ultimate responsibility. But the obvious defence to this charge would be that the deceased asked his assistant to kill him. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument offers a splendid defence in a wide spectrum of murder cases, viz: “The victim asked me to kill him. I merely complied with his legal right to die by doing so.” As the victim would no longer be around to deny making any such request, the likely outcome would be acquittal. Next case please. Everyone, not just spooks, would be handed a licence to kill.
These are valid arguments against popular notions of a right to die and assisted death but you seldom encounter them in the world’s media. The reason, it seems to me, is that the pro-life movement is not militant enough. What it needs is a PR campaign to rival that of the ‘gay rights’ fraternity – a tiny minority (1.5 per cent of the population according to latest statistics) which has convinced society that its bizarre practices are perfectly acceptable and that anyone who thinks otherwise should be treated as an outcast. They have even persuaded the British prime minister that they have a right to get married!
Similar determination is urgently needed by our own much larger minority group because the issue here is not just sexual orientation but a matter of life and death. A slogan is called for, a rallying cry to inspire a generation increasingly regarded as expendable. “Keep Breathing” seems to strike the necessary chord. It’s the title of my second novel.
My book describes a son’s desperate struggle to protect his ageing mother when a financially and morally bankrupt government crosses the line on euthanasia – which could happen sooner than we think. It’s an attempt to promote the pro-life message to a largely hostile public through the medium of popular fiction, something that does not seem to have been tried before.
You could call it a form of ideological evangelism — an attempt to engage the man in the street on an emotional rather than intellectual level. Richard Littlejohn, of the Daily Mail, has described it as “A wake-up call to society on the danger of euthanasia carried to its logical conclusion” and Phil Temple, of BBC Drama, said that it is “Rich in drama and conflict… a compelling and thought-provoking read”.
In my view, this populist approach has to be the way forward. I am convinced that for the pro-life message to prevail, public opinion must change. We may have lost the present PR battle but it is vital for the sake of future generations that we win the war.
Adam Grace is a former journalist with the London Daily Telegraph. KEEP BREATHING is available in paperback from Amazon (price £8.99 plus p&p) and on Kindle ($4.68).