Geneva Fallout

By AM Thursday, June 30, 2011

Share Tweet Share Share Email

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.