‘It seems that part of the moral constitution of a doctor is a commitment not to intend the death of a patient, and to protect them from harm.’
Dr. David Jeffrey, Senior lecturer in British politics
Last Thursday evening I found myself watching a rather strange movie on BBC4, ‘A Matter of Life and Death’, filmed in 1946 and starring David Niven. It was in rather curious juxtaposition to the intensive debate in the House of Commons the following day on assisted dying — or assisted suicide, as the BBC called it ten years ago.
In fact, as Sir Kit Malthouse pointed out in the debate, the motion was not really about self-determined death or suicide: ‘compos mentis’ people have been taking decisions over when to end their lives for time immemorial, for example by stopping eating and drinking. It's more about providing protection for the professionals and family members who become involved, either in planning when the ‘DNR’ (‘Do Not Resuscitate’) board should be placed at the end of the bed, or something more definitive. It's therefore about providing protection for those who assist in the process, not sanctioning the process itself.
However, there is something rather uncanny about the extent to which this new British parliament has got caught up in ‘end of life’ issues. The other subject which has generated so much debate, particularly among farmers and small family businesses, has been the new Government’s intervention in diverting yet more individually-owned inheritance wealth into general public expenditure. Listeners will be aware that we called for reforming and repurposing inheritance levies in 2023, and for ring-fencing its use for the purpose of supporting inter-generational rebalancing: but not for turning individually-owned capital for the future into supporting present-day and historic profligacy.
Whether by regulating ‘assistance with dying’ or by seizing personal wealth as people approach their end of life, there's something rather unpleasant about the way that the UK parliament has developed such a fixation in this area.
In contrast to parliamentary involvement in matters of life and death, it was very refreshing to hear of Warren Buffett's generosity in donating $870 million to four family-run foundations ahead of the U.S Thanksgiving holiday last week: his donation is also celebrated in Motley Fool Money.
In a letter to shareholders, he wrote that he and his children ‘have a common belief that dynastic wealth, though both legal and common in much of the world including the United States, is not desirable. We also agree that capitalism — whatever its weaknesses, including the vast disparities in wealth and political influence that it delivers somewhat capriciously to its citizens — has worked wonders and continues to work wonders’.
Warren Buffett is following the long tradition of philanthropists, including Andrew Carnegie, who understand that you can't take your wealth with you when you die. Some make arrangements for leaving charitable legacies in their Wills, as we commented on a fortnight ago, thereby providing a potential route for financing inter-generational rebalancing.
Others set aside assets during their lifetime, perhaps following a successful entrepreneurial career. If they're not sure how they will wish to target their support, they may choose to place it in a Donor-Advised Fund within one of the special foundations designed to provide these facilities. On this Wednesday 4th December there's a one-hour webinar organised by Philanthropy Impact which brings together several of these foundations for a virtual event: well worth attending for potential philanthropists.
As Warren Buffett says, capitalism is remarkably effective at generating individual wealth, and all the evidence shows that individuals are much more focused than government on providing its long-term benefit for generations to come. That is critically important for inter-generational rebalancing: for example, one of the audience at last Thursday’s BBC Question Time drew attention to the swiftly-reducing UK birth rate in the context of being prepared to welcome young migrants to the United Kingdom. However, we must be prepared to empower them with resources and life skills if living standards are to grow into the future.
As Rt. Revd. Rob Wickham, a former Bishop of Edmonton and group chief executive of the Church Urban Fund, wrote in the Church Times last Friday in his reflection on the assisted dying debate, ‘Poverty is a matter of life and death’. He draws particular attention to the close correlation between poverty and life expectancy: perhaps this should be regarded as the real 'elephant in the room'.
Many philanthropists — and many parliamentarians in the debate — will be followers of the Christian faith and, as such, will be aware of the story told by Jesus of Dives and Lazarus — how Dives was able to look up from the after-life (he was in Hades) and see the things we fail to do on earth, but how those on earth weren’t able to hear his words.
The 1946 movie, ‘A Matter of Life and Death’, paints a rather different picture of communication across the void. However, they both share the conviction that individual recognition is a fact of life after death. In order to enable this, the memory must be vested in the soul, not in the extraordinary organism which is our brain.
This immortality of individual recognition is worth remembering for those professionals and family members who will bear responsibility under the new legislation for weighing up, and assisting if necessary, the ending of a life on earth. They might have something to answer for at some point in the future.
Gavin Oldham OBE
Share Radio