The law on “living wills” could be reviewed after a young woman used one to commit suicide, Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, has said.Is anyone surprised, by now, that a NuLab apparatchik sees some bad press in relation to something the lawyers should have worked out was coming, and panics?
Because, not me:
Mr Burnham said that the case took the law into “new territory” which he did not believe had been intended by Parliament.Wait, what?
The finest legal minds in the country, and they couldn't foresee this exact set of circumstances? Because bloggers did.
"As I said, I have a lot of sympathy with the Wooltorton family, but their daughter's life and body were not theirs but her own, and I feel that their desire to solve the problem by giving the state ownership is highly immoral. I've watched someone drink themselves to death, and while I wished like hell they'd just stop drinking I'd already recognised two painful truths years earlier - that they were probably going to die and that it was through their own choices. Would we accept some kind of pindown regime to prevent another boozer drinking themselves into the grave? I'd hope most people would find the idea of treating a rational adult that way abhorrent, yet is it so different from forcing life saving treatment on someone who has decided that they don't want their life to continue?"But Andy has his headlines and his anguished relatives demanding that 'something must be done!' and he's not going to listen to any voices of reason:
He said: “I think it takes us into new territory, I don’t think Parliament designed this vehicle for this purpose … It does make me uncomfortable, I have to say I think it is worth us just reflecting on what this case raises and whether or not Parliament would want to revisit this issue.”An unholy alliance of the religious lobby and the Righteous. Just wonderful...
His remarks came as political support mounted for a re-examination of the Act which was passed after the Government gave reassurances to the Roman Catholic Church that it would not represent assisted suicide by the back door.
17 comments:
Do you think 'lessons will be learned', Julia?
A Firefly quote *and* the law of unintended consequences invoked in one post! :D
I watched a debate on the TV last Sunday that discussed whether the health services have a right to intervene in a suicide attempt if the person has declared that they do not want to be saved. I think the argument from those who supported the idea that the health and emergency services should not intervene was ambiguous to say the least. Having personally intervened in two suicide attempts I can assure you that it is extremely hard to turn your back on someone who is going to die unless you do something to help them.
I also reject completely the idea that any person who is otherwise fit and healthy but wants to kill themselves is of "sound mind". They clearly are not otherwise they would not be wanting to kill themselves! It is not a rational decision but a completely irrational impulse.
I am not advocating state intervention, btw - I'm merely suggesting that the usual human response to people in trouble should be allowed to assert itself. It's coincidental that, in this country, those who are most likely to have the opportunity to intervene in suicide attempts are agents of the state (health workers, police and emergency services, social workers).
Incidentally, one of those I helped has since gone on to become a mother of three beautiful children and is very very happy. The other is dead - she eventually killed herself with an accidental drugs overdose (coroners verdict).
"Do you think 'lessons will be learned', Julia?"
That's always the claim. And never the reality...
"A Firefly quote *and* the law of unintended consequences invoked in one post! "
:D
"Having personally intervened in two suicide attempts I can assure you that it is extremely hard to turn your back on someone who is going to die unless you do something to help them."
A hell of a lot of the problems in our society have been caused by people attempting to 'help others'. Why can we not just respect other people's decisions?
Especially when their acts don't affect us in the slightest...
"I also reject completely the idea that any person who is otherwise fit and healthy but wants to kill themselves is of "sound mind". They clearly are not otherwise they would not be wanting to kill themselves! It is not a rational decision..."
Not ever? I fail to see how that can be true.
The terminal patients taking themselves off to Dignitas are all mad, then?
If someone has made a decision to die by his or her own hand, that should be respected. But they should have no right to involve anyone else.
But if that person takes poison, then sends for an ambulance herself, as indeed she did, then the paramedics are in no position to judge her state of mind, or the legal provenance of any living will document waved at them. Nor should they be expected to make such judgements. Their orders should be to save life and relieve suffering, and they should be immune to lawsuits from failed suicides.
We have a right to make an end of our own lives, but we have no right to demand any degree of participation from anyone else.
I think the young woman had a history of mental illness in the story I read, so I think there should have been intervention.
I don't agree with suicide and I think assisted suicide and then euthanasia are charters to kill off the old and rich or old and those that will cost the state a lot to look after. Once these are accepted practices, what next? Death panels on the NHS?,
@Stan
I can appreciate your POV, as someone who has suicidal urges every now and then, I appreciate it's a function of my occasional bouts of depression.
But there's a difference between that and someone not wishing to die slowly, or be confined in their own body.
It's a difficult thing, trying to differentiate between different qualities of life, but if someone sees no future for themselves due to physical issues, then surely it's their right to elect to die?
Would you wish to be a prisoner in your own body, going insane by degrees, or be released from the worst prison possible?
I disagree that a desire to die is always an irrational intention, there are times it is rational, and in those cases should be allowed.
"The terminal patients taking themselves off to Dignitas are all mad, then?"
I did say "otherwise fit and healthy" - those suffering with terminal illnesses don't fall into that category. It's pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that someone who is healthy and fit, but trying to end their life is not of sound mind. There must be something troubling them otherwise they wouldn't be trying to kill themselves! By that very defintion they can not reasonably be considered to have a sound mental state.
I don't agree either that "a hell of a lot" of the problems in society are caused by people trying to help others. I agree that a lot of societal problems are caused by the state taking on the role as provider of that help (sounds good in theory, but in practice it will always go pear shaped) but it would be a very sad world indeed if we just let others suffer when there was something we could do as individuals to help them - but, then again, I am a Christian so that is kind of my default position.
Obsidian
"I disagree that a desire to die is always an irrational intention, there are times it is rational, and in those cases should be allowed."
When is the desire of an otherwise fit and healthy person to die a rational decision? By the very nature of the act it is an irrational impulse.
I have no problem with the concept of terminally ill people choosing to end their own lives. I've seen at first hand the immense pain and suffering of cancer stricken patients towards the end of their lives and should such an illness ever get me I would not want to go on to the bitter end - but that is not the same for otherwise fit and healthy people.
"We have a right to make an end of our own lives, but we have no right to demand any degree of participation from anyone else."
True enough. I hadn't heard that she called the ambulance; the report I read was sketchy on those details.
But even though the paramedics took her in, if the doctors didn't have anything to prove her state of mind, they should have accepted there was nothing they should do.
"...I think assisted suicide and then euthanasia are charters to kill off the old and rich or old and those that will cost the state a lot to look after."
Yes, there's a danger, as there is with a lot of things. But then, isn't the NHS doing this alrerady, to possibly unwilling patients?
"It's pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that someone who is healthy and fit, but trying to end their life is not of sound mind."
They may be healthy now, but see no future for themselves.
"I don't agree either that "a hell of a lot" of the problems in society are caused by people trying to help others...but, then again, I am a Christian so that is kind of my default position."
'The road to hell...' and all that ;)
@ Stan. I think you may be arguing from a similar position to George Pitcher, whose article on the sad death of Kerrie Wooltorton I commented on when I blogged about this (thanks for the link and comments BTW Julia, but I didn't exactly foresee this as I had no knowledge of the living will bit of the law - just a realisation that people must live, and possibly die, as they see fit) . The fact that committed Christians such as you and George don't understand a rational decision to end one's own life does not mean that it is necessarily irrational. Often, yes, and I said as much myself. But always? Pamela Weston was, if not fit and healthy, by no means terminally ill. She'd simply had enough of living. Similarly I can conceive of being in the same position without suffering from ME. I'm not remotely suicidal but if I ever get to the stage where the people I care about are all dead before me and I've no desire to see or do anything else with my life I can imagine making that decision. I'd prefer to pay for the services of a medical expert who can send me off to the undiscovered country in a state of extreme comfort and fluffiness, but in the absence of such an option my second choice would be to try heroin for the first and, since I'd buy a truly epic quantity, last time. Since the state owns my body in the matter of what I choose to put in it I don't have that option either, and while my shotgun would be effective I've never liked the idea that someone will have to clean up the contents of my head and then try to sleep that night, so taking a heap of OTC medication and then going to hospital for pain management only seems like an option someone in good health might arrive at quite rationally. I'd be flattered if someone like you, Stan, tried to talk me out of it, and I'd possibly even be inclined to stick around for a bit just to debate it. However, if the circumstances were that I no longer desired to continue living you'd have a very hard time persuading me to carry on.
I can understand the concerns many of you have. I can see how assisted suicide might be used to cover up euthanasia, which I personally see as quite different things (euthanasia implies a merciful death imposed by someone else rather than chosen by the euthanised person - I've heard of voluntary euthanasia but this seems synonymous with assisted suicide so I prefer to think of them separately). I can even see how it may be the thinnest of veils for murder, or at least murderous intent if someone can persuade granny to shuffle off now before the inheritance goes on a decade in a nursing home. However, all of these can and should remain illegal and the police called if there's anything to suggest that the deceased was coerced.
I hold the libertarian view that my body and my life are my own, and if they are truly and completely my own then not only I must be able to choose to stop both and to seek professional help if I want, but that someone who obstructs me is imposing a form of violence on me, well intentioned though they may be. That doesn't imply that assisted suicide must be made available - legalising assisted suicide doesn't mean the right to have the service provided any more than legalising toffee apples means the right to the provision of toffee apples. For various reasons it might be best if the state avoided the conflict of interests and banned itself from providing assisted suicide in state funded hospitals, so all it would mean is that the state would not stand in the way. The reality is that the state, possibly influenced by long standing religious tradition - no offence intended - is unlikely to concede full ownership of our lives and bodies to us anytime soon, and if Andy Burnham's remarks are anything to go by the UK may well go backwards. Yet people will still choose to end their lives, not all of whom will be irrational, and will be forced to choose from a variety of largely unsatisfactory methods.
"They may be healthy now, but see no future for themselves."
Which reveals that they can not possibly be of sound mind at that time. Why would an otherwise fit and healthy person not be able to see a future for themselves?
"The fact that committed Christians such as you and George don't understand a rational decision to end one's own life does not mean that it is necessarily irrational."
In what circumstance can you give me where a person who is otherwise fit and healthy decides to kill themself is making a rational choice?
Pamela Weston had suffered an enormous trauma which MUST have effected her mental state. She has since made a recovery and, as far as I'm aware, pretty damn glad she didn't kill herself - therefore had she tried to do so it would have been an irrational decision.
Your body and your life are your own - but as an adult human being you also have responsibilities to others. You say you have the right to end your life, but what right do you have to put your family, friends and loved ones through the mental hell and turmoil that would follow your suicide? Believe me, it never ever ends. They would spend the rest of their lives suffering as a result of your decision to end your life. Your life and body may be your own, but your actions carry consequences for others.
And even if you have no friends, family or loved ones to care whether you live or die someone has to deal with your death - whether that is the person who finds your body (can you imagine the shock and anguish that can cause even a total stranger) or the train driver whose train you just chucked yourself under (for example). As I said, actions carry consequences.
You know, earlier in the conversation, Julia suggested that people helping others is a prime cause of societal breakdown. It isn't. The prime cause of societal breakdown is the demand of rights without the acceptance of responsibilities that goes with those rights and the abrogation of what responsibility there is to the state.
In what circumstance can you give me where a person who is otherwise fit and healthy decides to kill themself is making a rational choice?
I thought I had when I said:
...if I ever get to the stage where the people I care about are all dead before me and I've no desire to see or do anything else with my life I can imagine making that decision.
That's not to say that I anticipate ever being in that situation - just that I have anticipated the possibility and have given some thought over how to end my life. I assure you that I'm not remotely suicidal, Stan, but since I've already considered the possibility am I irrational? I see it as little different to making a will and considering the possibility that this or that person might not be around either and where the bequest should go in that situation. Or would you say that I have considered it rationally but would be irrational if the situation ever did arise and I followed through with it?
even if you have no friends, family or loved ones to care whether you live or die someone has to deal with your death - whether that is the person who finds your body (can you imagine the shock and anguish that can cause even a total stranger) or the train driver whose train you just chucked yourself under (for example). As I said, actions carry consequences.
Indeed, and I feel that the fact that I mentioned similar considerations as a reason not to use a shotgun should have tipped you to the fact that I feel the same way. To jump in front of a train is a particularly selfish method of ending life, and jumping off buildings or anything else that leaves a gruesome find for someone to deal with isn't much better. However, few 'neat' options are around because of the state's de facto ownership of our lives and its refusal to allow individuals to end their lives when they choose.
The prime cause of societal breakdown is the demand of rights without the acceptance of responsibilities that goes with those rights and the abrogation of what responsibility there is to the state.
I agree that rights go with responsibilities, but to other people not to the state. The state claims a significant part of my life and body as its own and is prepared to use violence against me if I don't comply. I strongly object to that and as long as it keeps that up I owe it *nothing*. However, what responsibility do I have to anyone, much less the state, to continue a life that I no longer want? Equally, what right do I have to demand that someone hangs on to life they no longer want for my sake? I've been in the second position incidentally, and it hurt like hell for a while. But after that came hindsight and the realisation that I'd have been even more upset if the person had clung on to what some would call life, but what we all called existing in a world of pain, just because it'd make the rest of us feel better. Selfish and needy private wishes would have made no difference to the outcome then, but if it was a trip to Dignitas might I have tried to talk them out of it? Fuck, yes! I'd have wanted to talk about it. But if they were determined would I have acted to prevent them? No, because that would mean forcing someone else to live in pain for my benefit. I have no more right to do that than I do to enslave and torture someone. If they've simply had enough of life the only difference is that there's no torture.
You are religious and feel that ultimately you have a responsibility to God. If so, fair enough. Frankly it's better than the damn state, and I'll grant the possibility that there is a God and that you're right. But even then, and only should someone choose death before it comes on its own, it would be between him and them.
Yes Julia, she called the ambulance herself and when they arrived she said she wanted to die, but didn't want to die alone.
But no public servant should be put into a situation where they have to make a spur of the moment judgement which could get them sued for malpractice by others with the benefit of hindsight and a whole lot of case history information at their disposal.
If the emergency services act to sustain life, they should be protected against lawsuits. Because being alive is always reversible, being dead isn't.
"Yes Julia, she called the ambulance herself and when they arrived she said she wanted to die, but didn't want to die alone."
That was pretty selfish. But not indicative of a disturbed mind.
"If the emergency services act to sustain life, they should be protected against lawsuits."
And if they don't act because they think they are at risk of their own? What then?
Post a Comment