Western societies are increasingly coming to believe that, given appropriate safeguards, terminally-ill persons should have the right to die. This is the culmination of liberalism; it gives supreme consideration to the individual’s right to choose even on such an issue that has for ages been considered sacred.
Any debate on death tends to be emotionally, or religiously, laden. There is little doubt that humans, as living beings, place great importance on survival. Topics such as suicide and euthanasia are shrouded in taboo and there is little public discussion as to the elements leading to such drastic action.
Life expectancy has, since medieval times, more than doubled. This is largely due to an improved way of life and advancements in medical knowledge. Death can become, through artificial means of support, a prolonged process lasting for months.
The decision as to whether to keep a terminally-ill patient alive, or to gradually ease the termination of life, falls on the medical profession. Research shows that such decisions place undue stress on doctors and that, in such circumstances, they tend to be guided by pragmatic considerations rather than religious beliefs. Generally, doctors keep away from facilitating death in any way for fear of getting into trouble with the law.
Replying to questions by The Sunday Times of Malta, Bishop Charles Scicluna argued that there is no such thing as the right to die, with euthanasia being “a disturbing ‘perversion’ of mercy’” (July, 27). The bishop acknowledged that he had no personal experience of seeing a terminally-ill person dying in agony. He is a lucky person.
My perspective is undoubtedly conditioned by the way that both my parents withered away. My father was kept alive for days on end on morphine. My mother suffered from dementia and she stopped being herself long before her body did. There was no rationality in their having gone through this ordeal and it certainly added nothing to make them more deserving in the afterlife.
Especially tricky is determining the stage at which an illness is considered terminal
The local public debate on assisted dying is largely a spillover from the controversy in the UK media over a Bill being debated in the House of Lords. Up to now, the 1961 UK Suicide Act makes it a criminal offence, carrying up to 14 years in jail, to help someone take away his life. Now, the House of Lords has been debating the subject for the third time, after Charles Falconer tabled a Bill largely modelled on that adopted by Oregon in the US.
The proposed Bill enables a mentally competent, terminally-ill patient, with ‘settled intention’ to end his own life, by self-administering a prescribed fatal dose of drugs if, according to two doctors, he has no more than six months to live.
The debate in the UK has been fuelled by two prominent prelates who publicly expressed themselves in favour of assisted dying.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote: “I have spent my life working for dignity for the living. Now I wish to apply my mind to the issue of dignity for the dying” (The Observer, July 12).
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote: “The fact is that I have changed my mind. The old philosophical certainties have collapsed in the face of the reality of needless suffering” (The Daily Mail, July 11). He insisted that it is not “anti-Christian” to ensure that terminally-ill patients avoid “unbearable” pain and adds that they should no longer be at the mercy of doctors “playing god”.
The present head of the Church Of England, Justin Welby, profoundly disagrees with Carey and described the proposed law as “mistaken and dangerous”, claiming that it would leave a “sword of Damocles” over the elderly. L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s newspaper, has argued that the legislation would turn doctors into “notaries of death”.
Those who favour assisted dying emphasise alleviating suffering, bodily integrity, self-determination and personal autonomy, while those against say that it devalues disabled and terminally-ill people. Especially tricky is determining the stage at which an illness is considered terminal; it is not unheard of that people have been wrongly diagnosed as being terminally ill.
When it comes to the emotional side of death, matters get even more complicated.
Dying is as much an emotional as a physical journey, intertwining the feelings of moribund people with those of their relatives. Each person involved suffers tremendously throughout the whole trauma going through different emotions such as love, pain, relief and a sense of guilt. Patients may long for death so as not to become a burden on their dear ones. Vulnerablepeople may feel abandoned, especially at a time when health and social care are becoming prohibitively expensive.
Admittedly the case for assisted dying is not a straightforward one. While the patient’s right to choose is important, it cannot be considered as an absolute one, eliminating all other values or considerations. And it is unfair to depict opponents of assisted dying as rigid dogmatists who put conviction prior to compassion for those in pain.
Still, I cannot but feel a lot of sympathy for those wanting assisted dying and a dignified death. At some point, life may lose its purpose and it should not be prolonged unnecessarily. There is little that is sacred in having a living corpse chained to life through artificial means. My experience tells me so.
fms18@onvol.net