Thursday, July 16, 2009
Death in Switzerland
I was not required to discuss assisted dying on The Daily Politics, but I did discuss it in the corridor outside the studio with Frank Field and Lord Falconer. Field spoke of a woman planning suicide accompanied by a Dignitas man 'in a woolly hat'. The clothing detail was, somehow, devastating and convinced me I'd rather scoop out my own heart with a teaspoon than go to Switzerland to top myself - or have myself topped, as it were. Then there is this story, which is either a glorious affirmation of love or a horrific abuse depending on your perspective. Apart from the Swiss prejudice, I don't know what my perspective is. I use to be violently against this kind of thing - partly because of spending a couple of weeks in Holland researching a magazine article on euthanasia, which the Dutch then did with unattractive enthusiasm - but, these days, I am incapable of such certainties. This morning, however, I am all for assisted suicide at the first sign of any degenerative illness. This is because I watched Getting On on BBC4 - the best TV channel in the world - last night. Quite brilliant, very funny and utterly depressing, it will result in flights to Zurich packed with the only slightly unwell. Even death in Switzerland would seem to be preferable to life in a British hospital.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
I have a friend who has Lou Gehrig's Disease. Whom I'm really glad lives in Belgium and not on either of these Islands. Choice might be nice.
ReplyDeleteVery nicely done, its good to see an outside perspective that shows things as they are.If you have questions regarding runescape accounts don’t hesitate to contact me.
ReplyDeleteWhy, thank you for that Allen. My runescape's accounts are well overdue their accounting....?!?!?!?
ReplyDeleteAs for Dignitas; the basis on which the discussion is taking place is false. It is not suicide - or even assisted suicide - it is legalised killing. If you are fit enough, you can kill yourself and don't need anyone's assistance. If you are not capable of performing the act yourself, then you are a highly vulnerable individual whom we should not be giving others the power to bump you off.
Yes, there are emotionally wrought examples that people can give where this view might seem harsh, but 'hard cases make bad laws' is a pretty sound maxim.
" If you are fit enough, you can kill yourself and don't need anyone's assistance."
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly. I am fit enough to pull out my own teeth, but I am still grateful that there are skilled people to help me do it. If people prefer to end their lives with dignity and without pain, why should anybody else prevent them? The arguments agains 'assissted suicide' are all abysmal. At best they are feebl;e, easily dismissed, slippery slope arguments and at worst I think they just show a relish at human suffering of the kind usually found only in among religions.
John, just because someone doesn't exactly match your point of view, does not make their argument abysmal. Nor do we necessarily need your particular animus against religion to be dragged in at every inappropriate opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI think the Dutch and Oregon examples provide sufficient empirical evidence that when legal restraints are removed individuals can become a little overenthusiastic about 'assisting' dying.
"I think the Dutch and Oregon examples provide sufficient empirical evidence that when legal restraints are removed individuals can become a little overenthusiastic about 'assisting' dying."
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about removing 'legal restraints'? Assisted dying would be covered in them, so long as it is available. There is no good argument against it. Our lives are our own, they do not belong to the state or the church and neither institution should be entitled to force us to live them. And I do think that the most passionate opposition comes from those with a religious passion for inflicting suffering on others (even, somtimes, themselves). As the saying goes, bad people ever do bad things, but it takes religion to make a good person do evil.
John, the good Professor Weinberg is an excellent physicist, but his worn out quote would embarrass a sixth-former with it's tendentious facetiousness. I shall, however, resist your constant attempt to turn all argument into a discussion of the unique evil that you say is religion.
ReplyDeleteThe restraint removed - and I'm surprised I'm having to say this - is the prohibition against assisting in the ending of a life. The safeguards offered up by Lord Falconer in his amendment last week actually had fewer restraints than those of either the Netherlands or Oregon.
No one, for goodness sakes, is forcing anyone to live their life. The argument is whether you give some people immunity from prosecution for taking someone else's life, and if you are seriously telling me you cannot see potential abuses and problems with that then I'm afraid your ideology has blinkered your rationality.
John, if it's all so screamingly obvious, why are you hiding behind euphemisms like "assisted dying". And what's with all this tiresome reliance on the word "dignity"? I smell a ruse to keep prices high. How about walk-in shops at the local mall with signs that say: "Killings Performed Here--No Appointment Necessary"
ReplyDeleteBTW, I thought the saying went: "Silly people ever say silly things, but it takes a secular rationalist to spout real drivel."
And of course, Peter, the free market should be allowed to decide the price.
ReplyDeleteKillings! Geeeeet ya killings here! Today only, buy one get one free on family suicides!
There is no good argument against it, after all.
And air miles, Brit, don't forget about the air miles.
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you, if I were in the field, I could bring prices down chop-chop. Besides, who wants their last memory to be of some stuffy Swiss dude trying to look dignified while thinking about the secret weekend getaway with his assistant? There are more momentous alternatives befitting the occasion for one who can master that look of dignity.
Genius!
ReplyDeleteExciting-Movie-Deaths-R-Us!
Maybe for Sir Edward it was regret at having named his children Caractacus and Boudicca. There ought to be a penalty for that sort of thing.
ReplyDelete(Poor attempt at humor)
Sure, anyone can kill himself but it's not like washing your hair. Probably the easiest way, if you have access to firearms, is to put the gun in your mouth and blow your brains out. i'd guess you feel nothing, or if so only for a micro-second. But without such means - have you ever tried cutting your 'wrists' (forearms, really), or hanging yourself? It's not quite as hassle-free as you might think.
ReplyDeleteThere's also the disposal problem. You has to consider the people who'll find you in the bath, or dangling seductively from your light fitting. At least with the Swiss killers, no such qualms.
Suddenly those runescape accounts don't seem so bad.....
ReplyDeleteElberry: You convince me that suicide is a very bad choice. But not that legalising killing is a good one. Frank Field's woolly hat is enough for me on that.
ReplyDeletePeter, Brit, Ian: Love the humour, thanks. The subject desperately needed it. It's not about dignity, I realise as I read of the Downes syndrome, it's about taking ourselves far too seriously. Strangely enough. Let's laugh like crazy as the absurdity of the individual human condition then fight the same way to hold the ancient legal lines. It's always worth noting how little appetite there is in Germany for this kind of thing.
"The argument is whether you give some people immunity from prosecution for taking someone else's life, and if you are seriously telling me you cannot see potential abuses and problems with that then I'm afraid your ideology has blinkered your rationality."
ReplyDeleteIs this still going? Probably not, but I will respond just in case. The argument is about giving people immunity from taking somone esles's life when that person has expressly asked them to, which is a bit different. It is odd that the 'suffering is good for us, just ask god' brigade leave that important distinction out. Of course there is potential for abuse. Perhaps there are human situations where no potential for abuse exists, but I struggle to think of any. Of course, as things stand abuse is institutionalised. The police are used to force many people to endure days, weeks and months of humiliation and pain because, well, I think because our society in its dustiest reaches remains in thrall to the misanthropic bronze age death cult of christianity.
Incidentally, I know of two people who deliberatley gave their mother, who had an incredibly aggressive cancer, an overdose of morphine. The doctor explained how much would prove fatal to her. One of the women was a nurse and knew how to do the rest. Neither of them, you see, enjoyed watching her agonies or thought that it was improving for anyone that she should continue to be wracked by pain, vomiting and incontinence. And yet, under careful supervision, her suffering could have been prolonged by up to two weeks, according to the doctor. Do you think these women should be prosecuted? If not, you must agree that certain people should be immune fofrom prosecution for taking another's life, don't you? That rather leaves your position in tatters.
in thrall to the misanthropic bronze age death cult of christianity.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it strange that the bright modern rationalists who have freed themselves from the terrors of the "death cult" are the ones who always end up advocating for death?
John, your fevered polemics would impress Calvin and Savonarola. How about you practice what you preach and do a little evidence-based analysis.
"Isn't it strange that the bright modern rationalists who have freed themselves from the terrors of the "death cult" are the ones who always end up advocating for death?"
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly. Nobody is advocating for death, it's just that death happens and it does us no good to pretend that isn't true. Whether I choose it to happen now or later should be my business and not that of the state or some self-appointed curator of human suffering, such as a priest.
Oh and by the way Peter, re your link, the question is not (or should not be) whether assisted suicide is 'clinically necessary', but whether the force of law should be used to prevent it if it is chosen. I think I should be the one to decide if I want to live or die, thanks. Even if you or any other body thinks my death might not be 'clinically necessary'.
ReplyDeleteI think I should be the one to decide if I want to live or die,
ReplyDeleteThat isn't what you are asking for. You aren't even really asking for a compassionate shortcut to the inevitable in hopeless circumstances. What you are demanding is a public or commercial suicide assistance service.
"What you are demanding is a public or commercial suicide assistance service.2
ReplyDeleteNo I am not, and nor is anyone else. I am just suggesting that if I decide to die, and there is someone who will help me, for payment or otherwise, people like you should not be allowed to use the police to interfere. In other words, I am asking that you keep your beak out of other people's business.
But, John, sticking my beak into other people's business is how I get my kicks. Of course, I prefer to think of it as speaking out for the weak and vulnerable, but then I would, wouldn't I?
ReplyDelete