Unfortunately, in these days of over-the-top media reaction to the US President, anonymous sources have become the norm as long as they can be used to further a particular narrative.
K A BENFELL
Gonville
Humiliating end
My main consultant for this letter was my husband, who died in January this year.
His death was not a surprise and, as we had both made submissions to the End of Life Choices bill when the issue went before a select committee in 2015-16, we discussed euthanasia thoroughly during the year before he died.
He pointed out that in New Zealand patients are permitted to decide what to do about their in-growing toenail but not to end an unpleasant, possibly deeply humiliating, probably painful phase of dying, with the end in sight anyway.
This worried him and, as it turned out, rightly so. In the end he did indeed suffer pain and great mental torment, part of which was humiliation.
He certainly would have chosen to exercise the right to end his life but was unable to do so.
LS
Whanganui
Battle of beliefs
David Fraser (letter, Sept 5) needs to read Nick Lane's The Vital Question, subtitled "Why is life the way it is?"
A biochemist who leads the Origins of Life Programme at University College of London, Lane was awarded the 2015 Biochemical Society Award for outstanding contribution to molecular life sciences. That is just the beginning of his explaining "where did we come from", "how did all organic life develop" and "why are we here".
Thousands of dedicated scientists are exploring deep queries about the natural world with the tools of recent knowledge and technology, which "biblical faith" followers cheerfully brush aside in favour of the ancient explanations of various mythologies. They attempt to stonewall or reverse modern (secular) movements in society, politics and justice.
Mr Fraser is concerned that "if there is nothing or no one beyond ourselves, then family, friends — and so on must decide all codes of morals and ethics". Well, yes. That has ever been true as between all religious variants as they have contested and borrowed: Judaism/Sumerian, Christian/Roman, Christian/Islamic, e.g. and since the modern era secular Humanism/sectarian Christianity.
Two factors derive from those comparisons.
First, in all cases there is a battle between what one side (or both) will consider "absolute".
Here is the ground on which past politicians and priesthoods joined hands to effect an agreed relativity (say declining Rome vis-a-vis ascending Christianity).
Second, the growth of knowledge from the 16th century has forced growing recognition that religious claims to absolute power in the domains of morals and ethics do not stack up under the concentrated focus of objective analysis coupled with advancing knowledge across a widening variety of disciplines.
Thus the move away from monarchist power linked with elitist religious rule has, in many nations, given way to democratic parliaments that tend to more relativist solutions. These in turn tend to avoid the simplistic, brutal mandates of the old religions.
Nevertheless, the wheel turns, and we are seeing a revival of the rightist movements that we thought defeated in WWII, and the absolutist leftist ideologies — both inimical to Western democracy, but because of its inbuilt priestly hierarchy and its premised link to "God", the religious right is the more dangerous. (Abridged)
RUSS HAY
Whanganui
Send your letters to: The Editor, Wanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Wanganui 4500; or email editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz
