It's not a thought experiment in ethics, but a real situation. Twenty-two-year-old Emma Gough was a Jehovah's Witness, but died after giving birth to her twins at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in the UK.
There's just been an inquest into her death, but the coroner hasn't yet recorded a verdict. Did she in effect take her own life? Will it be a misadventure verdict? We should know later this week.
It will all be academic to the twins. OK, they will not miss their mother, because they'll never know what it's like to have one – not a biological one, anyway. She won't even be a memory. But they'll grow up in a world of kids who have mothers, and, while not all kids still have their mothers, this pair could have had theirs.
Coroner John Ellery said the inquest was an exploration of the circumstances of her death, not of her faith. And that is the way with inquests. They deal in facts, evidence. However, it was her choice of religion that motivated her to give up her life rather than accept blood, and that is a fact.
Contrary to what shrieking atheist bashers would have you believe, there are atheists – perhaps many atheists, perhaps most atheists – who believe people should be free to live according to religious beliefs if that's what they wish and if it's their choice, freely made. Religion may have brought good into some people's lives. For others it may have provided a model that's helped them work through problems.
But does that right extend to imposing its unwanted consequences on others? Discuss.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.