Humans face moral dilemmas throughout their life or, at least, from the time they are old enough to differentiate between right and wrong in some measure. It does not mean that humans do no wrong but, at best, it means that they get to choose between acting in the common good and acting against the common good and that is, at least, something to be mildly grateful for. (I should add at this stage that penguins have no real morality, at least as far as you understand it, because we are so bound up with instinct that is incredibly difficult to go against an evolution-mediated behaviour. We see no logical reason to go against the inclination to always take our turn on the outside of the rookery, where there is no protection whatsoever, when the wind howls like a banshee and the snow forms a carpet on our feathers , although it would be, in a somewhat very selfish, self-interested way, possibly sensible to do so. However this seldom persuades me not to pass comment on your moral dilemmas, great and small; it is sometimes good to have another species' view, I think.)
The Brits are about to debate, in their legislature, the question of the legality of 'assisted suicide'. The last time that they held a debate on this issue was in 1997 or 1999, I cannot remember which, and they came down firmly into the 'it is a crime' camp.
Now assisted suicide is exactly what it says on the tin; helping another person to commit suicide, which, in itself, is no longer a crime. How do you punish the successful suicide bid? And to punish the unsuccessful seems to me to churlish in the extreme. A person goes to all that trouble and fails; they surely don't deserve punishment for being inept. However, a number of Brits (about 18) have been travelling to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, to take advantage of the services of Dignitas, an organisation set up with the express purpose of assisting people to kill themselves. (I will deal with the morality of charging people for this service later in the blog.) This, it appears, has prompted the re-opening of the debate about whether or not it should be legal in Britland.
I do not have a problem with suicide per se as long as it does not impact on other people (or penguins), bus, tube and train jumpers please take note, although it is difficult to see how any suicide doesn't impact on friends or family but, at root, it must surely be the 'potential suicide' who must make the choice about whether or not to end his or her life deliberately; it is merely one of the results of your consciousness and your ability to make choices.
However, much of the west's morality is grounded in Judeo-Christian myth and its roots lie very deep indeed. The Christian Church has always described suicide as a mortal sin, it is after all murder of oneself - 'thou shall not kill' - although whether they still deny the right of burial in consecrated ground I cannot say; they certainly used to, going so far as to bury the suicide at a crossroads well outside the town or village. (Shades of Robert Johnson and a pact with the devil who frequents such places, I think). But in a more secular age, this feeling amongst the largely irreligious, has waned to be replaced by a more existential approach, which no longer listens to the pronouncements of Popes and Archbishops.
So where do humans, or rather Britland humans, go from here? If one accepts that the pronouncement of the church, of whatever denomination, have no place in the argument then, it seems to me, to boil down to the rights of the individual. (A slight digression;: humans have no basic, intrinsic rights; only 'socially-agreed rights'. To argue otherwise merely puts humans into a position of a 'God-given' morality and humans, at least in Europe, have fought for centuries to be free of that particular yoke.) I would not presume to offer a rational, or irrational, argument over whether or not someone has a right to end their own life; the decision must be theirs and theirs alone but when you start to involve another human being in your plot to end your life, the waters becomes very murky indeed.
As a 'true friend' or spouse or partner, should not the wishes of your 'loved one' take precedence? (Assuming you have a heart.) Shouldn't you assist them in whatever it is that they want to do? Don't you owe them your compassion for what they deem to be an intolerable situation? Should the law punish you for helping a friend or a partner to attain their life's desire which impacts on (mainly) no-one but themselves? Clearly, most people's (or at least most people's, closest to the would-be suicide) argument would be that it is not wrong and no-one should be punished. On the face of it, I agree.
However, it is seldom as clear-cut or straightforward as that. If, and it is a very big if, only two people are involved and the 'significant other' merely acquires the means to permit the would-be suicide to kill themselves then I see no reason to prosecute. But how does one know that the suicide has not been coerced or, more significantly, murdered, which is a crime? It is very easy to shift along a shedload of paracetamol down a victim's gullet if they are drugged out of their eyeballs with diamorphine or to overdose on that same diamorphine. Enact safeguards, I hear you say. Involve the medical profession or some other respected body. I regret to say that you have just extended the net somewhat wider that my original agreement to the practice took account of.
Medical Practitioners do not, as far as I know, take a Hippocratic Oath but for a hundred or more years, the abiding consensus of the profession has been to 'knowingly do no harm'. Obviously, it is a good adage. Where treatment is possible, treat with the most widely accepted treatment which does no harm even if it means that you will only prolong life for a few days, weeks or months. Otherwise let nature take its course. However, by engaging the medical profession in the personal decision of the would-be suicide, you are in direct opposition to that 'do no harm' tenet and so become embroiled in yet another dilemma; how do you know that the doctor has not been subverted to the 'significant' other's possible intent to murder? You cannot be sure just as you cannot be sure of the 'significant' other.
The basis of Britland law has always been 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. It is difficult to see how a jury would differentiate between 'assisted suicide' or murder if the motive remains hidden or successfully-falsely professed.
Whilst I have the utmost sympathy for those suffering from terminal, debilitating disease who wish to end their lives, I fear that legislating to make 'assisted suicide' legal opens up a veritable host of cans of worms; and where does it stop? Twenty years down the line, does assisted suicide become the norm, whether the patient desires it or not? (Remember that the King's physician administered what amounted to a 'speedball', morphine and cocaine, to a dying, comatose King George V of Britland just so that it could make the morning, as opposed to the evening, papers. It's in his diaries, people!)
So do I hope that the Brits vote against? On balance, I do. There are many ways of killing yourself, all by yourself, if you truly want to; I don't see why anyone else should get involved.
Finally, as promised, to elucidate on Dignatas. They charge €4,000, or thereabouts, for the privilege of assisting you to die legally. However, the Swiss only deem it legal if nobody gains from the death. However, Dignatas refuse to openly publish their accounts, although whether they disclose them to the authorities in Switzerland I have no way of knowing, and this must raise doubts; what have they got to hide? Dignatas was set up by a lawyer, and we all know how altruistic and frugal they are, so vastly inflated salaries to effectively 'hide' profit cannot possibly be the order of the day; can it?
No comments:
Post a Comment