The end of life.

Quite a number of recent posts have been on the topic of abortion - the deliberate killing of an unborn human being.  This evening, I want to go to the other end of the Journey of Life spectrum, and look at another emotive issue that is currently very topical - assisted dying (aka assisted suicide/euthanasia).

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;" states Shakespeare's heroine figure in his play Romeo and Juliet.   So, whatever name is given, and has been given, over recent decades, the common denominator, in this situation, is the deliberate taking of a fully adult life, for whatever reason.  By the way, I do not propose going into a discussion on etymology, especially with regard to the strict definition of euthanasia (from the Greek!).

Yesterday, the UK House of Lords debated the Bill that has been brought forward by Lord Charlie Falconer.   This Bill seeks to “enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life”.   Of course, there have been a number of attempts to legislate in favour of the right to end one's own life in recent years - at least one previous one also being in the name of Charlie Falconer.   Thankfully, each one has been defeated, but the assisted suicide and/or euthanasia supporters keep coming back with the sort of determination that one often wishes was seen in other areas of politics!

Often, some recent high-profile case, in which there has been a lot of public sympathy for the person who wishes to end his/her own life, is used by the 'suicide lobby' (to use a convenient shorthand expression!).  One that may well have been raised in the House of Lords, yesterday, is that of Brittany Maynard, the young woman from the USoA who travelled from her home state of California, to the state of Oregon, in order to legally kill herself!   However, emotional cases do not lead to good legislation!   Thankfully, for every Brittany, there are hundreds of others who do not take the 'easy' way out!  There were many who shared their stories on social media, but I didn't notice their stories receiving the same publicity in the main-stream media!

However, away from the individual cases.  What about the general picture?  It is interesting that all of the professional medical bodies are opposed to the sort of legislation that Charlie Falconer and, in the Scottish Parliament, Patrick Harvie, wish to see enacted.   However, that is not really surprising! Do assisted suicide supporters really expect doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on their ethics or their empathy? Do they realise that this reduces the second patient’s will-to-live request to a mere personal whim—perhaps, ultimately, one that society will see as selfish and too costly? How does this serve optimal health care, let alone the integrity of doctors and nurses who have to face, and live with, the fact that they helped other human beings kill themselves?

Indeed, a report in The Telegraph, on Thursday, stated that "One in 10 British people believe elderly people should be offered a “reward” if they opt for assisted suicide, new polling suggests."  Now, apart from the fact that, if the 'reward' is only to be offered posthumously, it is going to be of little satisfaction to the recipient, why should anyone wish to be rewarded in this way?  By the way, the suggested 'reward'  was "a martini and a medal"!  I'm teetotal; and I would prefer to wear a medal on my own chest - while standing up!   The report continued: "Anti-euthanasia campaigners said the finding was “chilling” evidence of deep-seated prejudice towards older people from a small but significant minority of the population."   Chilling, indeed.

What is needed is more, and improved, palliative care.  The Hospice movement does a wonderful job - I know, I have visited enough of their establishments! - but it is limited in its scope because, as a charity, it depends on the donations of supporters.  As I type, I am thinking just how far the latest demand from the EU - £1.7 billion - would go to providing that desired level of care.  However, all that will happen is that it will be wasted on an already corrupt and bloated administration!

The debate, yesterday, went on for longer than was expected, and there was no formal division.  However, it is reported that the majority of those who spoke did so in opposition to the Bill.  For this, at this stage, many of us are truly thankful.

To die, or not to die?

To die, or not to die?  That's a big question.  For most of us, the answer is that we wish to live for as long as possible.  However, it would appear that some of the world's legislators think differently!

At the moment, in the UK, two pro-euthanasia Bills are making their way through two different legislative bodies.  In the House of Lords, Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords earlier this year, although it is yet to be scheduled for its second reading.  In the Scottish Parliament, Margo MacDonald, MSP, is making yet another attempt to legalise euthanasia by a different name, as she presents her second End of Life Assistance Bill.

When such legislation is being considered, the proponents place a lot of weight on the circumstances of a few high-profile cases that are judged to be capable of producing great sympathy for the individuals concerned.  What is not explained, by the supporters, are the additional ramifications - or, perhaps, they have not sufficiently thought the matter through!

It was in 2002 that both The Netherlands and Belgium legalised the taking of another person's life, at that person's request and with their permission (voluntary euthanasia), provided that the person is legally competent and "... in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident". (from the Belgian legislation).  Euthanasia is also allowed in certain of the United States of America, in Canada's Quebec Province, in Albania, and in Switzerland while, in some countries, it is not legal - but a 'blind eye' is turned to it.  Assisted suicide is slightly different, but the end result is the same!

Those who oppose the legalising of euthanasia/assisted suicide may cite perfectly valid religious reasons for their position.  However, there are many who also oppose it on the basis that it could be the thin end of a wedge.  Recent news would suggest that they are correct to have such fears!

It would appear that it is not uncommon for the mentally ill to be euthanised (involuntary euthanasia).  This is already happening in both The Netherlands and Belgium with, in the case of the latter, organs being harvested from the victims. In Switzerland, the Supreme Court declared it to be a constitutional right for the mentally ill to be offered assisted suicide; while Quebec's new euthanasia legislation apparently allows the (involuntary?!) euthanasia.

Those of an earlier generation may well be hearing alarm bells ringing.  This deliberate killing of the mentally ill - and those considered not to be of any 'use' - was a policy of Hitler's Nazi administration. Aktion T4 was the name used after World War II for the 'euthanasia programme' during which physicians murdered thousands of people who were "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination". The programme officially ran from September 1939 to August 1941, but continued, unofficially, until the end of the Nazi regime in 1945.

Could such a situation re-occur in the 21st century?  Sadly, it is not impossible.   Earlier this year, witnesses appeared in the upper house of the Belgian parliament to discuss a proposal allowing euthanasia for children.  Already, under the current law, there is an exception to allow children, of at least fifteen years of age, to be euthanised, if they are “legally emancipated” from their parents.  However, Socialist Party Senator Philippe Mahoux, one of the architects of the 2002 law, is now seeking to broaden the law to include all children of any age with a serious and incurable disease and a sound mind.

With all of the, understandable, emphasis on marriage over the past year, the euthanasia Bills have received little publicity.  However, it is at our peril that we ignore the attempts, by some, to 'play God'.  It was interesting that, when Prof Stephen Hawking - himself, previously, an opponent of euthanasia - recently declared a change of mind, British paralympic star Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson criticised him, saying that weakening the law would reinforce prejudices against disabled people.

To die, or not to die?  It's much too important a question for the answer to be left to mere mortals!