Friday, May 11, 2018

Who wants to die?


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?

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.

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.


No comments: