Assisted Suicide - the moral debate
This hit the news around 2010 when people like Sir Terry Pratchett went to see what happened at Dignitas and spoke publicly of his own dilemma. There were also a couple of fairly well publicised legal cases both fighting for the right for an assisted death and where those who had assisted were then hauled up in court. I was very moved by what I saw in the documentary featuring Terry Pratchett as well as the stories of the people involved in the legal cases.
Mercy killing or assisted suicide?
The prospect of becoming so ill that one wants only an end
to pain and suffering, and that the only way this can be achieved short of a
miracle is to end one’s life must be one of the most common fears in all
adults. We may consider what we are likely to want to do if this happens to us,
but we cannot really know until the time, if life at all costs is worth
preserving or at what point the balance is tipped.
A short period of years ago suicide was regarded as a crime
by the state and universally endorsed as a sin by the Church. An arguably more
compassionate view now prevails which allows individuals the right to choose to
end their lives without the slur of criminality and consignment to an
unconsecrated grave. The living are left to deal with the fall-out of grief,
guilt etc.
Traditionally the idea of euthanasia in our society has been
rejected as it was seen as open to abuse by the unscrupulous and the
dictatorial in ridding themselves of anyone hindering their ambitions of power
or material gain, one short step from arbitrary execution and ethnic or other
targeted cleansing.
This must make us all wary of sanctioning the reality of
“mercy” killing where both the decision and the act are taken by a party other
than the person whose life is to end. It is right that any such deaths are
investigated and pronounced upon independently, that anyone whose wishes or
intentions towards their own fate are not demonstrably clear and unequivocal
should be protected at all costs from possible misconstruction and intervention
of another.
Let us be clear about the subject : suicide is the voluntary
ending of one’s own life whether or not one’s mind was clear and rational at
the time and regardless of any physical condition.
But assisted suicide is not the same thing at all. It is not
a case of anyone else having the right to decide when another person’s life is
not worth living. The consideration here is purely physical pain and suffering
and not mental anguish alone. It is a case of
a person wishing to end their own life (free from legal blame) but being
prevented from carrying our their intention by reason of physical disability or
infirmity and therefore dependent upon another person to assist them.
This is relatively easy to achieve of course, nothing to prevent this happening, but the legal implications are the problem as it is something of a lottery as to what will be the consequence for any friend, relative or partner in this situation. Arguably it will not matter a great deal, the trauma of having to take this action, of losing the loved one, will be the only matter of real significance and one’s own fate would be of little import. A conditional discharge is the likely outcome of a prosecution, but what an unnecessary complication with potentially serious and damaging consequences for the rest of that person’s life already blighted by loss, how superfluous to go through the motions and how stressful for the person concerned to have their ordeal prolonged. And how awful for the potential suicide, to need the help and compassion of someone they love but to put them in jeopardy should they agree to the plan.
If we acknowledge their right to die with dignity at a time
of their choosing, should they not also be able to do so without the guilt and
worry of what will happen to the other person?
Those of us who have ever had a beloved pet put down out of
kindness have a small inkling of what it must feel like to have to do this to a
human being we love. Our animals are our responsibility and we have to make
that decision for them, a mercy killing situation. But the loss and the sadness
are still great, and one can only imagine how much this would intensify if a
person were to die under these circumstances. Those who have watched friends
and loved ones die painfully and perhaps slowly, without dignity will have more
idea of what they would or would not have been prepared to do if begged by the
person suffering. They might hesitate to act for reasons of innate moral prejudice
or cowardice, or for fear of legal and social consequences. No-one should be
judged for this, each should be free to decide for themselves the moral
validity of an action which we would all hope to be spared.
We have so much power to determine our lives, so much medical intervention to preserve life at all costs and rightly so, that life should be precious and that the default is set to the presumption that it is worth keeping. Nothing should be withheld which is needed to sustain life, UNLESS the recipient refuses it, or very strict controls are exercised to allow that decision by proxy. There is so much choice in living, should we not be able to die when we choose, the ultimate exercise of a life choice, a right when it is possible to exercise it?
There is a certain school of thought which believes that life is worth living at all costs, and certainly no-one should ever be encouraged to see their life as worthless or undeserving except termination, but surely the value is primarily to the individual who suffers? Surely a life of value to others should not be clung to for the others’ benefit when the individual is suffering and wants to end it. When there is nothing left which can sufficiently alter the conditions short of a miracle, it is arguably cruel to deny the right to die to someone sure that is what they want.
As for the religious argument that life is sacred, given by
God and his prerogative to take, does the same argument logically extend to the
complete absence of medical intervention and health care? Surely this is seen
as God-given ways to safeguard life, to give people the choice to live, would a
compassionate God giving these skills really object when they are chosen as the
means to end suffering?
