As my regular reader will know, I tend to avoid sensitive subjects, so you won't find anything on religion or politics in my blog. Oh, wait..
The Assisted Dying bill was up before the Lords last week - had it been the Commons the irony would have been more acute in my view. God knows some of our current elected politicians could do with some assistance in that department.
As usual this event saw the arguments being aired on all sides - those who want to protect the sanctity of human life at any cost and those who believe that the individual, whose life it is after all, should have some say in the matter.
The bill is essentially about whether qualified individuals (doctors) should be allowed to help people to die peacfully and with dignity when there is no chance of recovery or the achievement of any real quality of life and where death would be preferable (to the individual) compared to continued struggle and exhausting, futile pain; or whether other people should decide on the matter.
At least that's what it should be about; a principled argument about who has the right to decide whether someone lives or dies, the person themselves or others who don't know the individual circumstances but believe in principle that people should never be helped to die or 'take their own life'.
Instead, because of the many voiciferous campaigns of those on the negative side of the argument in the past, the bill has been reduced to 'helping someone who has less than six months to live, to die at their own convenience and in line with their own wishes'.
Six months. Tops. That means they will be pretty far gone given the technology we currently have at our disposal in order to keep people alive. Whether they want to be kept alive or not.
We would not let a dog suffer like we allow our parents and grandparents to suffer in the name of these fucking do-gooders.
Yes of course there are issues around people being 'killed off' by other family members for nefarious reasons or older people being bullied into believing they're a burden on the family and therefore they should take their own lives, but how widespread is that?
And should a few despicable people take the whole 'control of one's own life' thing out of the hands of the individual whose life it is?
Have you read the book 'Me Before You'? If you haven't you should. It's great, a novel not philosophy, but it brings up many of the issues here at hand.
What about the formerly active, sporting, life-living person who has an accident, becomes paralysed and can no longer enjoy any kind of quality of life? Yet we have the technology to keep that person alive for decades, in pain, depressed but having no control over his or her own destiny, over whether they are allowed to live or die.
The guy, last year, with 'locked in' syndrome who was prevented from dying by 'do-gooders'. Do these people really think they're helping anyone? Or are they exerting their influence and control over people without really giving a shit about what that person really wants?
It might help in your consideration of this issue, if you were to put yourself in the position of the person who wants to die. Who has nothing left to live for. Who is kept alive by medical science and technology, but who, really, just wants to be able to die with some kind of dignity and control over their own destiny instead of being 'forced' to go on living, in pain, desperation and futility. It's like putting someone in a prison from which you are also denying them their only chance of escape. In that respect it is more akin to torture.
If that were me, my conclusion would be to state the following to these 'we will keep you alive at all costs and we'll prosecute anyone who helps you to achieve what you actually want: : 'How fucking dare you decide whether I can live or die?'
'What gives you the right to make that decision for me?'
'What gives you the right to prolong my suffering?'
These people actually think they are doing a good thing. They so are not.
No comments:
Post a Comment