The UK is currently in one of its periodic outbreaks of assisted suicide advocacy. It just turned into euthanasia advocacy as a completely paralyzed man is asking for permission to be murdered without legal consequence to the murderer. From the AP story:
Former rugby player Tony Nicklinson had a high-flying job as a corporate manager in Dubai, where he went skydiving and bridge-climbing in his free time. Seven years ago, he suffered a paralyzing stroke. Today he can only move his head, cannot speak and needs constant care. And he wants to die. To try to ensure that whoever ends his life won’t be jailed, the 57-year-old Nicklinson recently asked Britain’s High Court to declare that any doctor who gives him a lethal injection with his consent won’t be charged with murder. This week, the court will hold its first hearing on the case.
He should move to Belgium where doctors would not only kill him with a smile their faces, and then harvest his organs for the benefit of society–as has already been done to a locked in syndrome patient, MS patients, and a despairing mentally ill patient.
Hello, I know you are out there, I can hear you breathing! Disabled people killed and harvested. Hello! Does anyone care that this is the world we are in danger of becoming? (Sorry, I can’t believe the muted response those facts generate.)
Or, we could bring out our inner better angels and gently but firmly say no, and then help this despairing disabled man reach the place that the similarly situated author of The Butterfly and the Diving Bell, Jean-Dominique Bauby reached, e.g., finding great joy in life.
January 24th, 2012 | 7:08 pm
[...] First Things (blog) [...]
January 25th, 2012 | 12:41 pm
Jean-Domique Bauby died two years after he suffered a paralysing stroke. Tony Nicklinson, on the other hand, has been paralysed for seven years. Maybe he’s already been through the “I can live with this” phase – or maybe it’s just harder for a rugby-playing “alpha male” to accept a life of total dependence and physical indignity. Either way I think it is rather condescending to suggest that he just needs someone to help him find the rainbow lurking behind this cloud.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
There is no indication that Bauby wouldn’t have continued to relish life. Moreover, I didn’t condescend at all. I said that the proper response of the community would be to try and help the dispairing disabled man find worth in life again. Finally, you have previously said you oppose assisted suicide. Are you now saying this man should be killed as he requests? And if not, isn’t my suggestion the proper one? Or should we just abandon him to his despair?
Raven Chukwu Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, I oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide not because I feel it is immoral, but because I think that it is, as things presently stand, unworkable. Killing a person to end his or her suffering is not necessarily unethical – but people who feel compelled to do so ought to have at least the prospect of legal penalties to deter them.
Should this man’s relatives help him die? That, I feel, is ultimately their decision. I do not know how much he’s suffering. I cannot imagine what daily tortures he is forced to endure. But I think that he is well within his rights to ask that we, citizens of a supposedly compassionate nation, not judge too harshly those who help him bring his life to what he considers a dignified end.
No, we do not “abandon him to despair” – but neither do we ask him to “suck it up” or condescendingly suggest that everything will be all right if he just manages to start looking at things the right way. “Now there, Mr Nicklinson, why don’t you stop this foolish talk about killing yourself and just be like that other fellow who found peace and joy and wrote an inspiring book?”. Sounds like patronising condescension to me.
Try to help him find meaning and fulfilment, by all means, but be open to the possibility that Tony Nicklinson is a completely rational man who understands his predicament better than you do.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Again, I am not condescending. I am suggesting that we try to help him overcome. That’s what a loving and truly compassionate society does. Otherwise, why not just facilitate any suicide based on other than a transitory desire? It is quite possible he will never obtain the goal. But we should not give up on him even when he has given up on himself. Indeed, there are many completely disabled people who wanted to die who eventually became glad to be alive. Society should not abandon any of us to suicide or homicide.
And on a bigger level, to have a judge rule that if a disabled person consents to murder it should be a defense, is to open the door to terrible exploitation and coersion. I don’t believe you can have it both ways on this issue.
And the story said he wants a doctor to kill him, not relatives. Both should not be allowed.
Also, I have never said anything about suicide being “immoral.” Ever. I don’t criticize people who commit suicide or who are suicidal. None of us know whether we might find ourselves in such a situation. Rather, I criticize those who acquiesce to others’ suicides, and indeed, seek to help facilitiate them. Those are two different things. But mostly, I criticize public policies that would permit that to become part of the social fabric.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, “Again, I am not condescending. I am suggesting that we try to help him overcome. That’s what a loving and truly compassionate society does. Otherwise, why not just facilitate any suicide based on other than a transitory desire?”
Seven years, Wesley. This is more than a “transitory desire”.
I guess I’m looking at this from a personal perspective. What would I want? You say that we “shouldn’t give up on him” even if he has given up on himself. I would understand this exhortation if Mr Nicklinson were only six months or a year into his paralysis. But after so much time has elapsed? When do you think his much delayed joy will come? What if he has another seven years of despair before he finds a measure of peace? Would it have been worth it? Do you think that from that distance he would look back and say “Thank God I endured those fourteen terrible years. Now I don’t feel so bad”?
It sometimes seems that the so-called “culture of life” amounts to little more than the fetishization of the state of being biologically alive. But “life” is not an intrinsic good. Its value depends on the experiences an individual has while living. For some it is a marvellous gift and for others it is a terrible curse. It is not always appropriate for us to morally condemn those who help the suffering break free of it.
“And on a bigger level, to have a judge rule that if a disabled person consents to murder it should be a defense, is to open the door to terrible exploitation and coercion. I don’t believe you can have it both ways on this issue.”
Not a defense – but a mitigating factor. A mother who kills her suffering son at his request should still face the prospect of prison time but she should, if the relevant sentencing rules allow, be treated more leniently than, for instance, a man who kills his mother for her money.
“And the story said he wants a doctor to kill him, not relatives. Both should not be allowed.”
Both should be illegal but not necessarily blameworthy.
If a man were to ask me whether it is moral to steal a drug from a pharmacy to save one’s mother’s life (assuming, of course, that the drug is otherwise unobtainable) I would reply, without hesitation, that it is. But such an action would be, and should remain, illegal. I have similar feelings towards assisted suicide. It is sometimes the moral course of action – but it should remain proscribed by law.
“Also, I have never said anything about suicide being immoral.”
Maybe not – but the rest of the paragraph makes it clear that you consider assisting in a suicide morally unacceptable – and that (not taking one’s own life) was what I referred to in the first place.
January 25th, 2012 | 7:34 pm
Raven C-
I don’t know what your experience with disability is, but I was born with mine. It took nearly 20 years before I became desperate/depressed enough to think about killing myself. This is because social circumstances related to a disability change, or, possibly, the hope of change is extinguished. Feeling upset about something lasts for a long time, but Wesley is right in saying that the desire to kill oneself is a relatively transitory desire brought on periodically by desperation. Obviously, this man is suffering in an environment that is not meeting his needs as a disabled man. THAT is what needs to be changed, and it won’t change by killing him. Assisted suicide is the easy way out-FOR SOCIETY.
January 25th, 2012 | 8:58 pm
Wesley, I do think that the silence on some of these type of posts is due — well, for me, at least– to the feeling that, even if we continue to hold the line against legalizing assisted suicide there will still be those who hate their lives, who find them intolerable. There might be nothing we can fo about it.
Which is not to say that it is futile, that we should not fight relentlessly for a world in which life is valued and those who have major challenges aren’t treated with absolute love. But, I guess I find it hard to chime in with “If only we did something for *this* specific guy then he wouldn’t feel that way. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Of course. But we should never agree that anyone’s life isn’t worth living, nor should we acquiesce to euthanasia as a solution to suffering.
Big Don Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 1:24 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Currently, everyone is going to eventually die, one way or another. But technology is on the horizon to extend life indefinitely (barring accidents or murder). It will be interesting to read Life-Regardless-Of-Costs-or-Value type blogs, like this one, when that day comes, and the world population *really* explodes. There will necessarily be a development of The Ground Rules for Allowable Termination…
January 26th, 2012 | 8:23 am
I have been reading the debate about me and it’s very interesting. However, it’s time for a few facts.
I don’t want to die immediately but I can foresee a time when I will. Unless you experience what it’s like to have locked-in syndrome it’s probably best if you don’t talk about finding joy in living etc. I can tell you that living like this is unbelievably difficult and one’s thoughts inevitably turn to the concept of the quality of life rather just having life.
I am only asking a doctor to kill me because if a doctor does it, it’s bound to work. I don’t mind who does it but although my wife, a former nurse, is perfectly capable of doing it I would prefer it for her sake that she didn’t. In an ideal world she would administer a powerful sedative with my normal bedtime water so that I would be asleep when the doctor (or anyone, for what do I care as I am asleep; all I ask is that it works) gives me the fatal dose.
My biggest nightmares are:
1) That I will have another stroke which I survive, leaving me worse than I am now
2) That for some reason my wife can no longer look after me and I have to go into a home
In the UK it is legal to commit suicide as long as it is not assisted, which means that I can’t take my own life because I cannot commit suicide without assistance. I am saying that it is discrimination. I would imagine that as a Christian you are against such discrimination and for equality. That’s all I’m really asking for – equality, to be treated like you. Please explain what’s so wrong about that.
Regarding the ‘…life worth living…’ part of your discussion, consider this:
- I don’t need painkillers because I am not in pain
- I am not depressed so I don’t need therapy
- I am not near the end of my life so I don’t need palliative care
- I can’t speak so I don’t need company or visitors
- I am uncomfortable in the car so I don’t want to go out
- I am unhappy and the only thing that will make me happy is to give me the legal ability to decide my own fate
What do you think I should have?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Friendship. Inclusion. Care. Love. Not killing.
Once you ask for someone to be able to kill you, it isn’t just about you anymore. It affects the world.
My good friend was Mark O’Brien, who lived his life in an iron lung from age 6 due to polio until his natural deat at age 50. Please look at his writing and advocacy. There is a very good documentary about him called Breathing Lessons. I think he has much to say about this.
Thanks for taking the time to write.
holyterror Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
@Tony Nicklinson, Mr. Nicklinson, as a reader of this blog I appreciate you offering your voice here. Too often these discussions do not include the people spoken about.
I do not believe in telling people how to feel. I do not know what your life is like and would not presume to disregard your opinion of your life.
I was struck by parts of your comment and would genuinely like to know (as opposed to being rhetorical to make a point) :
Why do you say you can’t have visitors? Do all visitors expect to experience/receive a particular kind of conversation? Do your friends not have the patience to wait for you to communicate with them in whatever way you must have used to post here? Do you have any relationships in which you are not expected to *be* or *do* something in order for the other person to care about you, but rather are valued just for being around? Is it that you think that you are not really friends with people if you can’t entertain them with well-timed jokes or go hiking with them on the weekends?
Do you have caregivers who talk to you as a real person, not a Patient? Who treat you as a Being, rather than a Body? Who acknowledge your right to mourn your old life and still express gratitude for you being here now?
And, do you think your life would be any different if you had a way of getting out of your house that wasn’t uncomfortable, and people around you who saw those outings as joyful experiences, whether words were involved or not? Or regular visitors who can make books come alive when read aloud, or play music with passion?
To answer the question you posed above, I believe that you should have all the things I asked about, and more.
Not to say that anything we ever do will guarantee the outcome we want– making our world more tolerant, noble and just would not definitively keep you or anyone else from fearing worsening circumstances or feeling unhappy at being dependent on others. It’s just that we have to try. Which is the real purpose of this blog post, I think, and not presumptuously telling people about themselves.
Because you seemed to be asking this as well, I will say that I disagree with legalizing suicide because of what that means: That the state, at least in part, agrees with the argument that some lives are not worth living. And the state should not sanction that idea, ever.
That legal issue is mostly separate from the issue of human suffering, for which there is no acceptable solution, legal or otherwise.
Again, these are my thoughts, not in any way a presumption about yours — what they are or what they “should” be.
I hope you will take the time to come back and maybe even reply.
January 27th, 2012 | 5:32 am
Do you have the right of self-determination?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 10:36 am
To a point. But we are not trees, we are part of a forest. The commmon good also applies. It is a dynamic tension.
Amazed Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
So your argument is that the tree cannot be considered apart from the forest?
“Can’t see the forest for the trees”
Why bother with those pesky trees at all when there is all that forest to consider.
Its the hive that matters. Not the bee.
Seems only the far right and the religious zealots get that kind of reasoning straight away.
A tree better never fall as the result of making its own arrangements with a lumberjack.
Liberty isn’t any more welcome in Wesley forest than a tree.
Markus Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
@Tony Nicklinson,
With all the love and respect towards you and your suffering: yes, you have a right to self-determination, but you do not have the right to override good and evil trough your own will.
By directing the action towards you does not remove moral considerations: your intention is to kill by proxy a unique being, whose life is inherently valuable. I can extend on this topic if you want, but I feel that you don’t need logic, but love.
January 29th, 2012 | 8:38 am
To Wesley J Smith
I don’t understand your reply. Are you on something because your reply is just a load of gobbledegook, and what does ‘…to a point…’ mean? As far as I know you either succeed or fail.
I asked if you could legally commit suicide. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
Try again.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 11:15 am
No, that is not what you asked. You asked if we all “have the right to self determination.” Those are two different things.
But as to the suicide question, no. We don’t have the “right” to suicide. It is not a crime, but we are not yet legally “entitled” to suicide, much less the right to help in killing ourselves or the right to have someone kill us. And once, as you have, you bring in the greater society, it is no longer a private matter, even if suicide can be so construed which I argue it cannot. That is why, for example, the WHO asks media not to explicitly cover suicides because of the copy cat affect and the adverse impact on others.
January 30th, 2012 | 5:28 am
Phew! Still you have managed to avoid answering the question. By ‘self-determination’ I meant ‘…having the ability to decide where, when and how one dies…’ and you seem to be saying that you can determine your own fate.
If it isn’t your right to determine your own fate whose right is it? I know that Catholics are against suicide as a matter of principle but what about the views of non-Catholics?
Since it highly unlikely we will have a conversation untainted by your entrenched religious beliefs I don’t think I’ll carry on.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 10:30 am
Tony, I have been very clear. You have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. You do not have the right to be killed. That is a clear distinction that honors autonomy but does not open the door to private homicide. See Vacco v. Quill, US Superme Court. Also, society decided, properly in my view, that suicide itself was not a matter for criminal law but mental health. Hence, someone who is suicidal or attempts suicide cannot be prosecuted. But they can be hospitalized for treatment. (USA, don’t know about UK.) Assisted suicide advocacy seeks to change that, but it hasn’t yet succeeded.
Moreover, assisted suicide/euthanasia isn’t “suicide” as a matter of an individual act. It is a joint enterprise with the purpose of homicide. The state has every right to ban that as a matter of public policy, and should, as a matter of protecting the common good and vulnerable people from exploitation and coercion. And now, guidelines don’t work.
Amazed Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 10:16 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
If this man, who has a disability, was being denied help with such things as getting dressed, transportation, bathing, etc. the furor would be deafening.
But in the case where he asks to be allowed true equality he gets condescending lectures fueled by religious dogma and/or special interest group agendas.
But of course the lecturer feels justified because it is all simple and clear that its proper and “a matter of protecting the common good and vulnerable people from exploitation and coercion.”
The forest will rise up in defense of its trees as long as the trees aren’t asking for their liberty or anything remotely sensitive on a religious or political level.
Markus Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 7:26 pm
@Amazed, WJS isn’t making any theological arguments. Your anger is misdirected.
You should really think this thing trough before going into ad hominem how God’s love to all humankind is a bad thing, because this is the basis for morality in the Judeo-Christian worldview. It gives for human beings
1) The existence of moral value
2) The equality of moral value
You’re simply choosing to flaunt your supposed moral and intellectual excellence over people who believe in God. That’s the easy part: thinking trough your naturalism takes time. If you go trough the path you’ve chosen, you have to categorically deny the existence of every moral evil: racism, rape, torture, genocide.
To put it shortly, naturalism means the denial of true love.
February 2nd, 2012 | 10:26 am
@Markus,
I am sure Mr Nicklinson has had plenty of volunteers stepping forward to lecture him on the value of human life, the limitless nature of Gods love and informing him that God has a plan. I am sure he has been lectured on such topics endlessly and ad nauseaum whether he invites or welcomes such lectures or discussions or simply disregards them- this is not the issue.
I am sure Mr Nicklinson has been lectured endlessly on being more adaptable and more flexible and adjusting to his new circumstance and I am sure he has been informed that with enough time he will feel differently and see his circumstances differently, etc. etc.- again this is not the issue.
The point being missed is that Mr Nicklinson has the capacity to make decisions for himself but he lacks the capacity to enact his decisions and requires a proxy.
He feels the proxy should be treated no differently in carrying out (Mr Nicklinsons) decisions than Mr Nicklinson would be if he had the capacity to act.
As far as the state is concerned not all life has inestimable value as evidenced by capital punishment and while religious zealots might hold that the possibility always exists for redemption and rehabilitation the state historically does not.
While religious zealots might hold that the possibility for rehabilitation exists it would seem that Mr Nicklinson is not in agreement and that he simply wants the state not to stand between him and his proxy.
Mr Nicklinson has his own plan and from the states perspective Gods plan or even randomness in the universe or luck or fate should not be relevant to the discussion of whether Mr Nicklinson retains his right to self determination even if he requires a proxy to assert or enact his right.
Markus Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 6:19 pm
@Amazed,
If you want to be a consistent naturalist, then you see that the existence of rights is tightly connected to the existence of good and evil. On naturalism, there’s no right for self-determination, because if there’s a violation of it, it must be evil, and moral evil doesn’t exist. Capital punishment is also a question for which there’s no right answer, because all moral questions are simply questions about “feelings”, and thus are simply void of meaning.
I’m offering Mr. Nicklinson hope and love. I know you don’t like it, because they are also in the forbidden category for naturalists: hope dies with man (and the heat death of the universe) and love is simply a complex composition of brain chemistry, which just happens to increase the chances of breeding.
I know what naturalism has to offer. I’m not claiming that naturalists are dumb. I just don’t have enough faith to be one.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact