Geneva Fallout

To be pro-choice on assisted dying means simply to me to be entirely pro–life - Suzanne Moore

The Terry Pratchett documentary Choosing To Die produced quite a bit of reaction, much of it, although not all, reactionary. The BBC very quickly received 900 complaints and found itself accused of being a cheerleader for suicide. The Care Not Killing charity warned of copycat deaths and demanded an urgent inquiry. This hardly needs demystifying to show it as an impulse towards censorship. Others argued that the documentary was one sided. Perhaps, but as the BBC argued it is over the course that it tries to achieve balance and not in one particular programme. In response to the demands of the censorious who opposed the airing of the documentary Charlotte Moore, the BBC commissioning editor for documentaries, defended the corporation’s decision to feature the most controversial scene, Peter Smedley’s death at the Swiss clinic Dignitas on the grounds that the event was:

extremely powerful and challenging … but above all … honest. To gloss over Peter's final moments would be to do a disservice to Peter, to Terry and to the viewer. We have a responsibility to tell the story in its entirety. How can we do this if we shy away from the crux of the story, difficult as this may be?’

Axiomatic it would seem, but not to all. Those who do not want to watch such a documentary need merely switch channels. It is not compulsory to view them. They have the freedom of choice they so wish to deny others. They will be closing parks next on Sundays because they, not us, object to the swings being used. There is no reason why society’s viewing should be subject to the likes or dislikes of particular interest groups. Theirs is a recommendation for keeping us all stupid.


On the topic covered by Choosing To Die, some professed religious opposition, but there is no reason for society to take into consideration the affairs of the other world when dealing with matters in this one. As Catherine Bennett has argued in the Guardian, ‘just say no to bishops.’

At the same time, there is a case for listening when the former bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, argues that:

what we do have the right to expect is a good, caring, pain-free, peaceful death and, of course, in this century, in the last 100 years, there have been tremendous strides made in providing just that. That was simply not there. The BBC also has some hard questions to address; its own guidelines state that the portrayal of suicide has the potential to make this appear possible, and even appropriate, to the vulnerable.

Agree with him or not, these are arguments that need to be considered because they have a material bearing on how we live. They prompt society to think about the impacts of any measure on the most vulnerable. Any secularist or socialist could make the same case. It is not pitching the argument on the grounds of what Thor, Zeus or any other god might have prescribed in some holy book.

Moreover, there is every reason to listen to those who present secular arguments as to why the Dignitas road is detrimental to society. Michael Wenham, for example argued that:

interdependence is the secret of society. We are dependent on each other, and that's something for celebrating, not fearing, for embracing, not avoiding … My individual choice is sovereign. I want my kingdom. And the rest doesn't matter. The individual is the ace, trumping all else.

Even if we suspect this as being a disingenuous ruse which grossly misrepresents freedom of choice as wanton, rampant and aggressive individualism, it is worthy of consideration in that it invites us to consider the implications for society of assisted dying.

One very real concern that cannot be overlooked in the discussion is that the right to die could swiftly become an obligation to die; that people with terminal illness would no longer be able to live out the remainder of their lives in a caring environment fully equipped by palliative care. Kevin McKenna made these points in the Guardian:

It is but a short road to travel between that and criticising those who insist on clinging on to life in their last days for using up expensive NHS resources … the world became a chillier place for the weak and the dying who do not possess a plump bank account and who still believe in the sacredness of life.

But the implication should not be that society denies the service to the rich few but that it extends it to the many poor who are forced to live horrendous lives because they do not have the wealth to pursue an alternative. As for his comments on those who regard life as sacred, such terms in my experience are used to suppress debate. Declare something sacred and by extension its critics profane and the debating dice is well loaded before it rolls. Not that human life is not precious. But its very preciousness is devalued the more human attributes such as reason and self determination are stripped from it. And there remains an element that some of the objections are specious. Many who ostensibly worry about the elderly being carted off to euthanasia clinics are often found wanting when it comes to arguing for greater funding for the health service.

Prohibiting public discussion is not the solution. Censorship has never kept society informed of anything, and helps keep it misinformed, relying as it does on the choking of the information necessary for a considered judgment to be made. Choosing To Die, in spite of its many critics and the unease it gave rise to has helped raise the profile of a much needed debate.

16 comments:

  1. Mackers,
    I would go with Kevin McKenna on this one. I think money is as big a dictate in our exit as our entrance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When you watch someone who once was a proud and able human being,who due to the ravages of alzheimer,s become a total stranger not only to their family,but dont even know how they are themselves,are so terrified they try climbing out of first floor windows, when eventually the family can suffer no more that person has to be taken into care and in effect drugged so much that they are nothing more than the living dead,and people say that their is dignity in such life! living for living sake is not a life its imo an existence without meaning,and certainly not what I would want ,Terry Pratchett had the courage to bring this debate into the public domain,he should be thanked not pilloried,anyone facing such a dreadfull death should have the right to choose and the better informed they are the better,

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nuala,

    he spoiled his own piece with some lightweight contentions. If you want to do sarcasm you have to do it well otherwise it doesn't work. It took away from his piece. But he had a point and it needs to be factored in. There is always a social consequence and it can't be ruled out of discussion.

    Marty,

    agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mackers,
    I would have found something like this incredibly hard to watch.
    Death is a very difficult subject, someone wrote in another post it was something which had preoccupied them as a child.
    I was always more preoccupied with what happens after death, any documentaries on that subject yet?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nuala,

    this sort of reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where they were discussing life after death and had three dead people in the studio to debate it. I am sure there are programmes that discuss life after death but none that I have watched.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mackers,
    It would be ground breaking stuff, it might make the Master a bit edgy though.
    No doubt he would have a few unwilling volunteers cross over and select the candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nuala,

    the Master has sent quite a few to find out already

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mackers,
    people have voted for him from the other side so I suppose anything is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fionnuala-

    'people have voted for him from the other side'

    Are you on about the dead- or the prods [ non catholic ] or both-

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michaelhenry,

    he is a firm believer in voting rights for dead people. And he is not sectarian. He will take the vote of a dead Protestant as quickly as a dead Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I suppose folks its an old Irish tradition;vote early ,vote often!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mackers,
    In some elections there were more dead than living voting.
    What a power, he could actually bring people back from the dead.

    ReplyDelete
  13. With my mother-in-law dying (presumably from Alzheimer's but did you know that this cannot be definitively confirmed in anyone without an autopsy?) at nearly 90, the precipitous decline in four or five years drained us of funds, wore us out with worry, and weighed us down mightily as she had nobody left in my wife's family but my wife to care for her. As Marty comments, the toll it takes on all of us financially, emotionally, and practically is exhausting and enormous. To see one you know regressing back into childlike dependence is both eerie and heartbreaking.

    There's a recent HBO documentary, harrowing, "To Die in Oregon," about those who choose assisted suicide after it was made legal. My wife vows not to put herself or our family through what her mother went through when and if the time comes and her own condition deteriorates.

    With demographics tipping so that there'll be a six-fold increase soon in the elderly, and as we edge into that category, I predict many of us will have to face for us, our spouses, and our close relatives, choices that will be like those of a few Oregonians.

    The "healthcare" industry's profits, the insurance boggles, tax burdens, the expenses of "palliative" treatments, the rise of hospices, lucrative drugs, government cutbacks, the collapse of pensions, and the costs of a very profitable sector conspire to make a complicated situation as we age, don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  14. AM
    "Many who ostensibly worry about the elderly being carted off to euthanasia clinics are often found wanting when it comes to arguing for greater funding for the health service".

    How right you are Anthony. If anything, our government is constantly cutting health care funding to the aged and infirmed with little resistance from anyone not directly affected by the cuts. I am not a fan of “assisted dying” (Jack Kevorkian style) however, I do agree with former bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, that “what we do have the right to expect is a good, caring, pain-free, peaceful death;”

    Fionnuala:
    The "healthcare" industry's profits, the insurance boggles, tax burdens, the expenses of "palliative" treatments, the rise of hospices, lucrative drugs, government cutbacks, the collapse of pensions, and the costs of a very profitable sector conspire to make a complicated situation as we age, don't they?

    IMO I think it all goes hand-in-hand with the “Globalists” plan to reduce the population throughout the world with more famines, disease and war. Some of our childhood diseases are even reappearing 20 years later after supposedly being eradicated…i.e., whooping cough and TB just to mention some. According to Jim Marrs, former newspaper journalist and New York Times best-selling author, says “the mysterious deaths of microbiologists, as well as the suppression of work by people like Royal Rife demonstrate how their plan is proceeding through eliminating possible cures for diseases.” And don't forget the infamous Kissinger Report. Far-fetched? I don’t think so when you take a good look at all the suffering going on around the world today. IMO modern technology has not been advanced to the betterment of mankind but rather to the destruction of mankind.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fionnchú,

    I was unaware that it took an autopsy to ascertain Alzheimer’s. Your experience was harrowing.

    ‘The "healthcare" industry's profits, the insurance boggles, tax burdens, the expenses of "palliative" treatments, the rise of hospices, lucrative drugs, government cutbacks, the collapse of pensions, and the costs of a very profitable sector conspire to make a complicated situation as we age, don't they?’

    An apt summary of the problems ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Helen

    I did support Dr Jack! It seemed to me that it is an option people have the right to take if they are to self-. I just think it ceases to be self-determining when pressure is applied to make the decision.

    ReplyDelete