The
Morality of Assisted Suicide – The clamor will increase – steps to consider
This subject coming hot on the heels of
the recent assisted suicide of Dr David Goodall 104 in a Clininc in Liestal,
near Basel in Switzerland, is now being discussed amongst people, and there are
differing views on the rights and wrongs of it.
So what do we have to consider?
I am merely referring to the issues, not comprehensive, that should be taken into consideration, when determining if the Country should change their laws to permit this form of death. Third link (below) is about the fact that Spain has now as a first step permitted an open debate about this topic, leading to a vote on whether or not to permit it, and if so with what restrictions, and conditions?
I am merely referring to the issues, not comprehensive, that should be taken into consideration, when determining if the Country should change their laws to permit this form of death. Third link (below) is about the fact that Spain has now as a first step permitted an open debate about this topic, leading to a vote on whether or not to permit it, and if so with what restrictions, and conditions?
1 The
consent of the person who wants to die? We need to consider his state of health
and the likely reason he has come to that decision. This is very subjective. In
Dr Goodall’s case he had worked till he was 102, had attempted suicide a few
times and failed, and he was confined to a wheelchair and had made the
conscious decision, as a man of SOUND MIND, to end his life this way, rather
than living a few more years in a manner his mind considered as being torturous.
2 Even
if one is of sound mind, who plays God, in saying he is reasonable or not
reasonable, in making this request? After all if the person was much younger and
of sound mind, but with only minor handicaps to living, should he be allowed, if
he wants to die?
3 What
about those who have left a request for assisted suicide, but at the point it
is considered he is in no sensible way, able to make this decision, due either
to the fact that the person has say, Alzheimer’s. Or is a vegetable kept on
life support, with no one willing to pull the plug, while the cost of medical attention
soars!
4 How
about the situation when someone suffers severe depression, has attempted
suicide many times and failed, and is a suicide risk, should one wait for the suicide
to succeed, or assist that person in killing himself, when nothing other than
his mental faculties want death?
5 The
moral argument can also be made that in certain countries and in this case one
could argue places like Australia fall into this category, where there is no
family support, because all have flown the coop, and is up to the state to take
care of the person in an elders home. This can lead to depression due to loneliness
that could only change if he was able to live with his family. Then it is
circumstances that led him to want assisted suicide, and if those changed, he too
would change his mind. Can it be used as a threat to his family to come to and
take him back to live with them?
6 Who
determines if someone’s illness is terminal and if he wants a quick exit by
assisted suicide, when he could live in an acceptable manner for many years,
albeit on medication and sedation etc.?
7 Do
we force living relatives to concur with this request, as a necessary condition
for permission to go through with it? What if no family member wants to allow
it, despite the desire of the intended?
8 In
order to prevent abuse of the system, should one have a minimum age when this
is permitted, like 80, and with reasons, other than infirmity and difficulty in
getting about?
9 As
you can see granting this permission, assuming there is a law in the land that
permits assisted suicide, is fraught with danger, as each case has to be looked
into in their own merit, and each circumstance can differ. So is it up to the
person to choose to want to die, no matter what if they reach a certain age? If
someone else's permission is ALSO needed then it is tantamount to playing God,
meaning that person or persons other than the intended, have the decision in
their power to permit or not?
It was brave of
Dr Godall to go public and give this subject maximum publicity, and I know
there was a film crew with him during this episode and his death will result in
a documentary that will be sold to TV stations and a lot of money will be made.
How it was to be divided I don’t know and if some was promised by the TV documentary makers, to the heirs of the good Doctor, or if he stipulated some charities to be helped, by stipulated amounts, then that is not a relevant point in discussing the issue.
It was part and parcel of this newsworthy world that some news has value and there are stakeholders who can share the value, and that is how and why it received pre-publicity to maximize profit, once this aired, to the channel and others who purchase the rights.
How it was to be divided I don’t know and if some was promised by the TV documentary makers, to the heirs of the good Doctor, or if he stipulated some charities to be helped, by stipulated amounts, then that is not a relevant point in discussing the issue.
It was part and parcel of this newsworthy world that some news has value and there are stakeholders who can share the value, and that is how and why it received pre-publicity to maximize profit, once this aired, to the channel and others who purchase the rights.
At the same time
I wonder, if his family was able to give him unconditional love and be with all
the time with personal attention, as 5 of his grandchildren live in UK, France,
USA and Australia, then his desire may have been different and his death wish mitigated, until it came naturally.
In looking at
him, despite his age and infirmity, it did not seem to me that he was seriously
suffering, as he was able to engage in very coherent and deep conversations
with people on matters of importance, where he had lost none of his mental faculties.
So then in this case the choice was HIS ALONE and he was therefore allowed to
go to a country that allows this, to go kill himself.
Ironically, he
was given a lever to let the lethal dose to enter his veins, but was not strong
enough to use it, and it was changed to a switch which he was able to turn to
let the medication flow into his body. What if you can’t do either?
So let’s say there is a law and it
requires only the intended to sign the consent and no one else. He signs it, but he is determined to be of sound mind, with physical ailments that are NOT life
threatening. What if the family appeal to the courts to prevent him from
carrying out his request, can a judge then make an order against the law, and
prevent it?
That is assuming of course he does not
have a funds to go to Switzerland, sign the form and kill himself. So if he had
the funds, he was able to do what he wanted to despite his family objections,
then that should be the same rule if he did not have the means to go to a
Country which permits it, if he so wishes, and no one can prevent a sane adult
to go anywhere and get this done! This proposed law in your own country is therefore aimed at the less well off, who cannot all trundle to Switzerland to die. (like we all want a death certificate issued in Switzerland for posterity! What posterity when you die?
We can make an educated guess that Dr
Goodall would have at most lived another 2 to 3 years at most, before he would
have passed away naturally, and it was because of his ability to fund and I was
told that it was crowd funded to raise the US$20,000 required for all the costs,
that he was able to go to a Country from Australia where he had lived most of
his life, to end his life.
So Moral and Ethical issues come out of
this and there is no easy answer as one would say it all depends. You cannot
have a law that leaves too much in the hands of that kind of rationale. It has
to be clear cut, black and white, and not open to either ABUSE or OVERUSE
leading to moral decay of a nation that allows people to end their lives, if
they are not happy, quickly, like getting a quickie divorce!
Of course when new laws are introduced
in such sensitive issues, like in abortion, there can be restrictions, to
minimize the population that can ask for and be assisted in this way to end
their lives, leaving open the option to people who society, normally considers
should be permitted to stop their intense suffering and on the assumption that
in normal circumstances only have a few years to live anyway. Depression should
not normally be one of the reasons, as that is open to abuse and clinical
opinion of what is severe and what is not.
So
who wants to die? It is easier said than done
Other links:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/957749/dead-euthanasia-switzerland-dignitas-david-goodall-doctor-scientist-104
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6254539/dr-david-goodall-dead-scientist-switzerland-suicide-clinic/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/10/david-goodall-australias-oldest-scientist-ends-his-own-life-at-104
Other links:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/957749/dead-euthanasia-switzerland-dignitas-david-goodall-doctor-scientist-104
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6254539/dr-david-goodall-dead-scientist-switzerland-suicide-clinic/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/10/david-goodall-australias-oldest-scientist-ends-his-own-life-at-104
No comments:
Post a Comment