The news of Sir Edward Downes’ and his wife’s decision to end their lives at an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland has once more brought forward a discussion on whether an individual should have the freedom and right to die at a time of their choosing, with assistance from others. Although I disagree with the notion, I understand the basis of the argument that the right to die should be as fundamental as the right to live.
This argument is usually put forward within a completely secular logic with no concept of a Giver/Taker of life, and no belief in an afterlife – where people are rewarded or punished, forgiven or chastised, elevated or debased according to the trials, tribulations and actions in this life. Theology aside, even those with their secular hats on have to admit that it’s difficult to see beyond the problems any change in the current law would cause. Here are just a few questions that pop to my mind:
Firstly and most obviously, what if someone changes their mind after any ‘assisted suicide’ was administered? Other than death, I can’t really think of any other decision we could take that is quite so irreversible – we can always do a u-turn, say we’re sorry, go back to the shop with a receipt within 28 days, turn over a new leaf etc. I suppose this one would be an absent worry really, as we’ d never know, even if the poor so-and-so did change their mind on an assisted suicide.
Moving swiftly on, if someone told me they wanted to end their own life, my first reaction would be to question their mental or emotional wellbeing. I don’t think I’m alone in this premise, hence vulnerable prisoners being kept on ‘suicide watch’ in prisons, doctors referring patients with suicidal thoughts for counselling, and the notion that suicide pact websites could easily manipulate teenagers etc.
So when someone expresses their wish to die, declaring it to be a fundamental right, should society ignore that voice inside that questions whether this person is fit to make such a judgement, and would it be an infringement of that person’s right to death if we looked into whether they could actually benefit from other forms of help: emotional, medical or otherwise? Who would be charged with making the decision that an individual is fit to exercise their own wish concerning their life, and what if they were later discredited, say, by a professional body on the grounds of competence?
The argument in the UK usually revolves around people with terminal illness or chronic pain who decide they don’t want to continue such a life of pain or dependence on others. In the event of assisted suicide becoming the norm for people in these situations, I shudder to think of the picture this would paint in the public conscience of those who choose to actually live out their lives - would they be seen as a selfish drain on society, the NHS or loved ones?
And what about pensioners for that matter? Given the grumbling and lack of respect and dignity many pensioners already face, could it become an accepted viewpoint that the prudent thing to do is to end one’s own life when no longer contributing to the GDP of the country?
The potential to manipulate frail and vulnerable individuals would be an even bigger reality than it is today. A faked assisted-suicide note could become the new way to cash in on one’s inheritance early, particularly if the victim was vulnerable.
And finally, if the Swiss-style suicide clinics were to take off in the UK, could you imagine such a service being advertised on your television or radio? It’s quite an unnerving thought for me. How would you skirt around the death-salesperson with his or her clipboard walking towards you as you exit the train station?
Just some thoughts on the issue.
As they say, a ‘right’ to die, will very soon become a ‘duty’ to die. Where elderly parents will feel the social pressure not to be a burden on their children and families, and indeed society.