If she were a horse and not a human being, someone would show compassion. However, because Debbie Purdy is a human being, she is being made to suffer unnecessarily. A minority of people (largely informed by religious belief) are imposing their views on the majority in preventing a change in UK law. But the case of Ms Purdy shows how urgent it is for that law to be changed.
Ms Purdy, is suffering from multiple sclerosis and wanted to ensure that if she travelled with her husband to a Swiss clinic to end her life, he would not be prosecuted on his return to Britain.
The law as it stands means that if her husband does accompany her he may be prosecuted if the Director of Public Prosecutions decides that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public’s interest to do so. But so far there have been no prosecutions of the relatives of the 101 British citizens who have gone to the Dignitas clinic.
The judges said that although they have every sympathy with Ms Purdy they cannot help her to clarify the law.
This means that Ms Purdy faces the following dilemma. She can choose to:
- Travel to the suicide clinic herself while she still has strength to do so, so that her husband is not implicated at all in her death. If she does this she will be ending her life prematurely.
- Live as long as she can and wait until she is unable to travel to the clinic by herself, and therefore risk prosecution of her husband on his return after her death.
Many other people want to travel abroad for assisted suicide but are unable to afford to do so or are too ill to do so. There is a compelling case for UK facilities to be made available. The only other legal option is to commit suicide. But a botched suicide attempt increases the suffering of already sick people. There are also mercy killings and some doctors do illegally assist their patients to die out of compassion, but they do so at great risk to their careers and, in some cases, their freedom.
In 2005 The Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill was introduced into the House of Lords. The Bill was based on the law in Oregon in the United States, where assisted dying has been lawful for ten years and where there has been no credible evidence of abuse. The Bill included more safeguards than the Oregon legislation.
The safeguards included in the bill were:
- People wanting assisted dying must be mentally competent.
- They must make their request in writing to their doctor.
- They must undergo a consultation with two doctors (one of whom must an independent consultant).
- If either of the doctors is concerned about the patient’s mental state the patient must be referred to a psychiatrist.
- The patients must have consulted a palliative care specialist.
- There must be a minimum 14 day period for reflection.
- The patients must make another final written request to a doctor willing to prescribe medication to end life.
- The patients, not the doctors, would administer the drugs.
In the House of Lords, the Bill’s opponents clearly didn’t want a debate, and broke a longstanding tradition of never opposing a Private Member’s Bill at second reading. They succeeding in summarily bringing the debate to an end before a detailed examination of its provisions could even take place.
Opinion polls show that there is a majority of the public in favour of a change in the law. I believe we have a duty to allow terminally ill people to make their own decisions about their own lives. That is a right that I would want for myself.
Opponents to change chant: “Care Not Killing”. Perhaps for some, easing death and the circumstances surrounding it, is the most compassionate and richest form of care.
(Source: Joel Joffe, The Times)
Good article. I didn’t know that the religious had so much influence in the UK. Here I thought that most people were secular other there.
Excellent article. I find it ironic, as you pointed out, that we put down animals to spare them misery, but have too much regard for the dignity of human life to do the same for human beings? WTF?
I had to think over this carefully before replying.
In essence, I do agree in what you are arguing for. It is an extremely complex decision this and one where the greatest consideration should be given as to the content of such a bill. There are many, many potential pitfuls that could occur if this bill was passed without all the t’s crossed and all the I’s doted.
There is an argument, leaving all religious opinion out of this, that if there is true palliative care at the highest level, then assisted death should not need to be an option. The skill of caring for a terminally ill patient should be thus; that a person can live with dignity and not die having to make such a decision.
However, I know in reality that while we in the caring professions aspire to this excellence of care, there are times that even when all the stops are pulled out, people can live longer than they wish and yes, unfortunately suffering can and is prolonged, though I stress there are the most excellent care systems and pathways in place to ensure this is kept to a minimum.
You see, you only do death once, people caring and the ones dying can’t turn the clock back and say, ok, we should have done it this way. You entre an un-known world and there lies the problem.
No-one can predict with certainty how a patient will die and when. Advances in drug technology and investment in palliative care means that more and more symptoms can be eased, and services are accessed which makes dying at home with loved ones a choice many people take in the community. Also, when the crunch comes people do change their minds about dying and want to hang on to the bitter end.
The bigger issue is the loss of independence and a feeling of possibly being a burden to a loved one. My only fear is that if such a law is passed then it could be misused and abused. People could feel under pressure to just die out of it, so that houses are left as inheritance, rather than having to be used for nursing home fees as their illness takes hold.(This is one example only).
I have seen so many, many cases where bodies fight to stay alive, even when the person wishes for it not to. Dying can and often is a slow old process, especially of course when chronic illness is involved. Bodies do battle on against all the odds and relatives, worn out with caring, can often and understandably be relieved when it is all over, how ever upset they are.
We do need to look at this again and I can agree in principle to the criteria listed as a safeguard.
I would not want to see this though as a first step where legislation is ammended and it becomes easier and easier to just end a life.
The sad, sad reality is that people are seen as expendable objects. Granny dumping in A/E departments over a christmas season so that children can take the christmas holiday is a rare but sad reality.
We live in a society where life can be viewed as cheap and throw-away-able.
All I am saying is lets have a real open and honest debate about what we really want. I for one would be fully in the debate and looking at all the considerations both for and against.
Lorena
You are right. The majority of people in the UK are far from religious, but because the British Constitution has so much religion enshrined in it, many Bishops have an automatic seat in the House of Lords, and religion is part of the establishment, giving religion disproportionate and unjustified influence.
the chaplain
Yep. You’re better off being a horse!
onethoughtfulwoman
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution which has authority because of your profession. I agree that the legislation needs to be drafted carefully, but it has been, and we have the experience of similar legislation working in Oregon, and it is still not being even debated.
I think I may differ from you to some extent in that I do actually now believe that a human being should have the right to take their own life if they wish to.
You have looked at this legislation carefully, I can see.
Fundamently, inspite of my Christian beliefs, I can agree that a human should have the right to live or die, should they wish to make that choice. All I am saying is I would not want to see any legislation in place which may push people prematurely or unneccessarily into this position.
An excellent blog athinkingman and I have enjoyed(if that is the right word) contributing to it, even if this is a very sombre, thought provoking subject.
onethoughtfulwoman
I have just been reading how doctors must respect a patient’s right to refuse treatment, and how therapists in the UK must respect a patient’s right to confidentiality in most cases (i.e. not take steps to report their suicide risk to doctors if the patient explicitly refuses consent for that). So, the medical profession can ALLOW patients to die, but must not do anything to ASSIST in that process. It still seems sad to me that horses in pain and terminally ill would get a better deal if they could express a desire to die.