American assisted suicide advocates engage in a great pretense—abetted by the media who willingly suspend their disbelief—that assisted suicide is to be very limited, a last ditch safety valve for the terminally ill for whom nothing else can be done to relieve suffering. That it isn’t actually practiced in such a limited way—for example almost all assisted suicides in Oregon have had nothing to do with unrelievable pain, but rather, with fear of the future—doesn’t deter either advocates or media from pounding away at the false talking point.
But in the UK, advocates are more honest. Assisted suicide hasn’t even been legalized, and already the head prosecutor of England and Wales has decided it isn’t in the “public interest” to prosecute the crime of assisted suicide when dying, disabled, or those with debilitating conditions are facilitated out of life by friends or families. Notice, no doctors. That’s because assisted suicide isn’t a medical act at all.
And the cases that are driving the debate on that side of The Pond mostly involve people who are not terminally ill. And now illustrating the radical scope of the assisted suicide meme, in the wake of an elderly husband and wife’s joint suicide, their daughter wants “assisted dying” debated—even though her parents were healthy when they killed themselves. From the story:
In a letter, the couple, who were longstanding supporters of Dignity in Dying, which has campaigned for a change in the law on assisted suicide, said that they had “chosen to peacefully end our lives”. They hoped to draw attention to the “serious human dilemma” faced by those who wanted to commit suicide. Chrissy Milner said that her parents had been happy but felt that their quality of life had deteriorated. “We have always been a very open and very close family and were aware of their views on assisted dying,” she said. “I don’t mean to take anything away from what has happened but I would like to see an open debate, both locally and at a national level, on the whole issue. [It] has been something that my parents were keen to promote.”
In a final letter to media organisations, including their local weekly newspaper, the Milners said: “We have each reached the point where all the finest available treatment and TLC can no longer attain the desired and acceptable level to support an enjoyable and worthwhile life.” Mr Milner had added a handwritten section which read: “Arranging this so it does not fail has been very difficult and traumatic for us. This need not and should not be the case. I have made many visits to friends and relatives in care homes. They cannot wash, dress, feed or toilet themselves. They cannot get out of the chair or walk. This can go on for a long time — years. Long before we reach this stage, the quality of life for us would be unacceptable, cruel and inhumane.”
In other words, death is better than disability or needing care. And if that is true, if fear of potential future problems justifies assisted suicide—then it should be available anytime a person experiences a life problem that makes him or her find continued existence unbearable; in short, death on demand. That certainly is what Philip Nitschke believes, and note, he is holding how-to-commit suicide clinics in Washington-State even though it was legalized for the terminally ill in that state.
This is the truth about what this issue is really all about, and it is the debate we should have: Should society seek to prevent suicide or permit to be facilitated anytime the desire is other than transitory? That is the nub and it is where we will end up if we surrender to the culture of death.
