Do We Have a Right to Die?

While there can be no doubt that the oath set the foundations for modern medicine, it’s worth noting that the text starts with a declaration of allegiance to the gods Apollo, Asclepius and Hygeia. So as our knowledge on medicine, spirituality and society improves, is it time to rethink the laws when it comes to assisted suicide?

To say that the subject of assisted suicide is contentious is akin to saying the Pacific Ocean is “slightly damp”. The chairman of the British Medical Association has recently been quoted as saying that the topic is “a journey that I just don’t want us to start on”. It is an ethical and ideological minefield: the more you delve, the more quandaries are thrown up. Death is a subject that we all have an opinion on, as it is something that affects every single one of us.

Given the choice, the majority of us would prefer to pass away painlessly and peacefully in our homes surrounded by our loved ones. However, the reality is frequently different. Often, the fear of the loss of dignity can be greater than the fear of death itself. So surely an issue as important as how we die should be decided by the individuals themselves? This idea is backed up by surveys carried out in Australia and the UK, which suggest that public opinion supports the right of the individual when it comes to end of life choices.

So we have a groundswell of public opinion supporting a change in the law. We have the medical knowledge and resources to put it into practice. Simple, right? Not in the slightest. One of the main arguments against assisted suicide is that it is only a small step from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia. A fascinating question arises from this: if we can trust an individual to make a rational decision on the end of their life can we trust society with its new power?

Legal action currently taking place involving two episodes of adding a DNR (do not resuscitate) order to a patient’s medical records without their knowledge shows that this argument is not without merit. At the same time, supporters of euthanasia would put forward the argument that introducing new and clear legislation regarding assisted suicide would lead to greater regulation, and ensure that these episodes no longer happen.

Another argument along the same lines is that by withholding access to assisted suicide we are protecting society as a whole. This argument not only doubts society’s ability to enforce the law of assisted suicide justly, but uses the tenet that by sacrificing a few unfortunate individuals we are saving a lot more. Coincidentally, this was also the main argument in the defense of torture when stories of abuse began pouring out of Iraq and Abu Ghraib.

Even if a law was to pass with the relevant safeguards and regulations, we are then left with the question of to whom the law should apply. The general consensus is that someone over the age of 18 who is terminally ill and of sound enough mind to make a rational decision can make the choice to end their life. But what if the person in question is not terminally ill?

A case that has recently made headlines is that of Tony Nicklinson who suffered from locked-in syndrome as a result of a stroke in 2005. Locked-in syndrome leaves the sufferer awake and aware but completely paralyzed. While locked-in syndrome is incurable, it is not classed as terminal. Tony’s case for assisted suicide was thrown out by the high court last month, and he died soon after of pneumonia after refusing food following the decision.

So if the law includes non-terminal illnesses we are left with the question of what constitutes “quality of life”? Tony Nicklinson did not think that he had any quality of life. Yet, a 2011 study in France and Belgium claimed that the majority of people with locked-in syndrome were “happy.”  However the study only took into account a small number of views and the results could be subject to bias according to the people behind it. In reality all it shows us is that individuals can experience happiness whilst suffering from locked-in syndrome just as they can experience despair, which once again ultimately leads us back to giving the power of choice to the individual.

At present in the UK people can travel to Dignitas in Switzerland to carry out their end of life plans, but this is dependent on whether you are well enough to travel and your financial situation, meaning that the less well off are unable to have this choice. So the need for clearer guidelines and regulations is evident. Unfortunately as history has shown we are unlikely to reach a resolution soon.

This is only the tip of a very large iceberg. These arguments are just a few of the pragmatic ones; I have not even begun to cover the religious and spiritual arguments and it would take a much brighter mind than mine to come up with definitive answers. A modern day Hippocrates, perhaps?

(James McGregor is a journalism graduate currently plying his trade in the social work field. James has a passion for the rights of people with disabilities, social justice and hip hop. This article was posted first at Urban Times a must visit site for issues from politics to environment and culture.)
-cw    




CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 76
Pub: Sept 21, 2012