Sir Terry Pratchett has made known his wish for an assisted suicide, and has funded the Commission on Assisted Dying.
The great comic fantasy author Sir Terry Pratchett is not dead but says he wants to be soon. And he wants to be able to do it by his own hand.
Suffering from a rare form of Alzheimer’s disease, posterior cortical atrophy, which will not make him lose his memory and language skills but his hearing and literacy skills, Pratchett has publicly made known his wish for an assisted suicide.
In his quest to control his own death, he has funded the Commission on Assisted Dying, which reported last month. The commission sounds governmental but it was not. While the commissioners could not have been more eminent, the commission was paid for privately.
It found that British law and practice lack coherence and that a new approach is needed. It suggested that there was a case for assisted suicide to be legalised for the small number of people who would either commit suicide or benefit from the knowledge that the option existed.
There were a number of suggested safeguards to ensure that assisted suicides had a settled intention and would not be forced into it by dire circumstances, depression, guilt or persuasion by relatives.
There were several eligibility criteria:
1. The person concerned is aged 18 or over [I would have preferred an old age] and has a diagnosis of terminal illness.
2. The person is making a voluntary choice that is an expression of his or her own wishes and is not unduly influenced by others.
3. The person has the mental capacity to make a voluntary and informed choice, and the person’s decision-making is not significantly impaired as a result of mental health problems such as depression.
In the cruellest of ironies, Pratchett does not make the cut because at this stage his illness is disabling rather than deadly, and by the time it is terminal he may not have the requisite mental competence to fulfil the third criterion. I suppose that shows that this private commission had some independence from its funder.
There is a bit of an informal war between the atheists and the theists on this issue. I say ‘‘a bit’’ because while the main proponents of change are secular or atheistic and the antagonists rather churchy, the lines are blurred.
The clergyman on Pratchett’s commission, Reverend Canon Dr James Woodward (an Anglican priest and canon of St George’s Chapel in Windsor) was the one dissenting voice.
The major dissent in the aftermath has included the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who argues against assisted suicide, saying it is unchristian and dangerous for society. He has compared it to abortion, arguing that abortion numbers rose and the respect for life declined on its legalisation.
This disappointed me for I profoundly respect and like the bearded archbishop.
Yet published research on assisted suicide laws are far from a slippery slope. A study of US state Oregon and the Netherlands, both of which have legislated for assisted suicide, shows that vulnerable groups are not ‘‘groomed’’ for suicide. Indeed in some studies the number of deaths by assisted suicide is utterly tiny (0.13 per cent in Oregon and 0.02 per cent in Switzerland).
These figures could be used to impugn both sides of the argument. There is no slippery slope, as feared by the churches, and there is no real need for reform, as argued by the advocates for change. There is no evidence that life will be so cheapened that we will then call for the killing of those with diminished capacity.
When you speak to doctors and look at these small numbers, is it all a moral storm in a mortal teacup? The doctors I have spoken to don’t cry out for the power to kill but for the courage to be not too enthusiastic with invasive treatment. Saving the dying from futile care is far more important numerically than the politicised area of euthanasia.
In Australia, euthanasia remains illegal and shrouded in moral difficulty and uncertainty. There are very few prosecutions and so the de facto situation differs from the legal prohibition. Anecdotal evidence suggests that unlawful killing occurs but is neither legal nor prosecuted.
In the parliaments, the issue is cyclical – every so often someone introduces a bill into a state or territory parliament for it to be defeated and sink again. The most recent sinking occurred in the South Australian Parliament in November 2010.
The Victorian bill was defeated in September 2008. Before that there were nine months in the Northern Territory where there was an act in force until federal intervention.
One gets the impression that a change in the law will come eventually. Statements from Tasmanian Labor Premier Lara Giddings and the state’s Greens leader, Nick McKim, make the Apple Isle the most likely next contender to put up a euthanasia.
This is an issue percolating away in parliaments around the country and so we must prepare for its next eruption. Those who oppose the change are getting prepared, as this missive from the Family Association demonstrates.
I myself am open to change on the law but not evangelical on the issue. Thus I look forward to your feedback on this topic. I applaud and support efforts to improve palliative care for the dying and efforts to prevent futile and invasive treatment. Both those options seem far more representative of issues at the end of life than the euthanasia debate.
Personally I have signed a medical treatment enduring power of attorney, which essentially enables my wife to make decisions if I lose the capacity, but that is not submitting to voluntary euthanasia. Quite the reverse, for this applies when I have no capacity to volunteer anything. This is the problem for Pratchett in the British proposals.
So what is your view?
What do you think of the British commission’s recommendations?
Is euthanasia a vital right for citizens or a tiny minority of cases if palliative care is provided and futile and invasive treatment is not provided willy-nilly?
Is it all a moral storm in a mortal teacup?
Is voluntary euthanasia inevitable?
Is the euthanasia question one of faith versus belief, or are the lines blurred with advocates on both sides of the divide?
Over to you ...
Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU
375 comments
More comments
Comments are now closed