Is it rational for people in old age to commit suicide? Recent stories include a couple who went to Switzerland because they were old and he was going deaf, she'd been diagnosed with cancer, so they merely 'checked out'. Nan Maitland's choice to die at 84 was made because her life had 'more pain than pleasure'. She wasn't terminal, but did have arthritis.
In something reminiscent of Flaubert's Madame Bovary's "Just a little sleep and then, no more!', Nan wrote:
"By the time you read this, with the help of Fate and the good Swiss, I will have gone to sleep, never to wake. For some time, my life has consisted of more pain than pleasure and over the next months and years the pain will be more and the pleasure less. I have a great feeling of relief that I will have no further need to struggle through each day in dread of what further horrors may lie in wait. For many years, I have feared the long period of decline, sometimes called 'prolonged dwindling', that so many people unfortunately experience before they die.
Please be happy for me that I have been able to escape from this, for me, unbearable future. I have had a wonderful life, and the great good fortune to die at a time of my own choosing, and in the good company of two Fate colleagues.
With my death, on March 1, I feel I am fully accepting the concept of 'old age rational suicide' which I have been very pleased to promote, especially in the past 15 months. Being active in the right-to-die movement, both in the UK and globally, has been an enormously important part of my life in the last few years."
Ironically, Mrs maitland's choice does not find itself being approved of by many of the pro-euthanasia groups. One, Dignity, said:
"Dignity in Dying does not support a change in the law to allow non-terminally ill people the legal option to ask for help to end their life - we campaign for a change in the law to allow the choice of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults only. No one should have to suffer against their wishes in the final days and weeks of their lives, and the law should seek to address this, as well as seeking to protect vulnerable people against abuse."
In an era of increasing medical progress, it is odd, churlish even, that some wish to decide on their sell by day on the grounds of personal convenience and comfort. What makes this a more worrying issue is that those who seek to 'play God' do so because they want to live on their terms, and now it seems, die on their own terms too! The ultimate two-fingered gesture and one that will require a rethink of Psalm 139:
"All the days numbered for me were decided for me, once you decided I should be!"
Life is no longer precious and no longer has either dignity, or worth, for so many people out there. We use financial indicators (i.e. it's cheaper to 'let help them die'), life value indicators (i.e. they have such a poor quality of life AKA 'they contribute nothing to society and cost us money' and happiness indicators (i.e. they'd be happier out of it (and so would we if they were).
We can sustain life, we can remove many of the inconveniences of illness and old age, and yet it seems, we want the final say - seems 'self' and selfishness make the irrational rational (for some at least.
Nah, don't think so - just proves that nothing was learnt while they were here!
26 comments:
I just cannot believe that someone, despite their pain, would volunteer to end their own life unless they were subject to some external influence.
Obviously I have faith and know that suffering cannot be avoided, but surrender to it and offering it back to God is the only thing possible.
In these days of science, proper care can be offered to those who are dying, which while not taking away the pain and suffering, can give them some peace and quality for their last days, to make their peace with family and God (if they need to).
No re-writing of the psalms is required since the number of a person's days would still be/is still known by God whatever the means by which they reach their final hours.
Some would argue that this choice to end life is merely the ultimate expression of the gift of free-will given to each individual by God.
Maybe instead of a theological debate we're left with an ethical and moral discussion.
(And you may not presume that these observations indicate on which side of the debate I stand).
SR - I wouldn't presume to assume!
I see this as moral/ethical issue rather than theological one. There are some 'God' issues but I see these as a secondary consideration.
This is an area I am quite touched by because of some of the work I do and it is one that raisesany issues.
Like UKV, there is incredulity mixed with sadness for all those involved.
Thanks for comments,
V
And if Jesus is right about everything, their future may be far far worse for them! This is very scary stuff.
So many old people are dumped in hospital these days - not because they're ill, but because they need help to live (going to the toilet, being fed etc.) - I've got a horrible feeling that if this "old age rational suicide" business becomes legal then we'll get people who don't want to look after an elderly relative simply saying "Oooh, poor thing they (by that they mean I) has no quality of life anymore, maybe it'd be kinder for them (by that they mean me) if they just passed on now, y'know, peacefully". I think we live in an age now where people don't see why they should have any responsibilities - that it's their duty to look after their relatives when they get too old to look after themselves - they forget that when they were too YOUNG to look after themselves they were looked after at the expense of a social life etc. We forget that we owe our parents/grandparents/etc.
My father has been told on many occasions that he's being cruel and wasting money keeping my mother alive, and that it'd be kinder (to who?) if we pulled the plug.
The only thing is, there is no plug, she's not being kept alive, she simply is.
And where did he hear this particularly unpleasant comment? Church.
Sorry, Vic, Can't agree with all of this - you are conflating two situations: the person who decides to end their own life and the person who decides to end another's life. These are totally different!
I would also be interested to hear what you think the difference is between someone who commits suicide under the influence of (for example) depression or grief, and the person who does so because they have a physical disease which is only going to get worse, not better.
Finally, I don't hold with the doctrine that suicides have a one way ticket to hell. I don't think you do either, but the idea is certainly lurking in the background of some of these comments. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Its a short step from one to the other S, when you start talking about quality of life. The other matter is that these people who are considering taking their own lives need counselling to ensure that they are fully aware of their options for their future.
I think it's rather a _long_ step from me making a decision about myself based on my perception of my quality of life, to anyone else making such a decision about me, or me making such a decision about someone else. I agree about making counselling available, along with any other appropriate medical care, palliative or otherwise. But in the end if someone has judged that they can no longer face life, I don't see that anyone else has the ethical, moral or theological ground to tell them they are wrong.
Neither do I believe "that suicides have a one way ticket to hell" (is it a doctrine?) but simply that, if everything Jesus said (as it is written in Scripture) is right, then their (or anyone's) future may be far far worse. There is much more to that comment than the issue of suicide. As Vic says... Pax. :)
It may be a long step for an individual, but not for the law. When we start implementing laws allowing people to make the decision to end their life if their quality of life deteriorates to what they consider to be an unacceptable level then we have to consider those who are unable to communicate their desire to die for one reason or another, and that's where we get dangerous loopholes like the one I previously described with "nuisance" elderly relatives. And don't think that people won't exploit a legal loophole - thats how we ended up with abortion on demand in this country after all.
I agree that laws are slippery things, and people more slippery still. I would be interested to know whether the assisted suicide laws in Switzerland have been abused in the way you describe, and if so what the Swiss have done about it.
That said there are still two issues: Nan Maitland did not act illegally in committing suicide (and would not have done even here), nor, in the jurisdiction where her suicide took place, did those who assisted her. The other issue is the _moral_ opprobrium which she is attracting, which seems to me to have no thought-through basis in theology or anything else. There seems to be a feeling simply that she should have kept a stiff upper lip and not been such a wimp. Then tacked on to that is a pseudo-theological gloss about the value/sanctity of human life. Perhaps I just don't 'get it'.
The central issue for Christians is surely that of 'ownership' of life; and whether it belongs to us or - as Christian doctrine has long held - to God. The secular (and Christian Liberal) idea that 'it is MY life, it belongs to me' makes suicide appear acceptable. However, the orthodox conviction that life indeed belongs not to ourselves, but to God, rules out suicide as an option. As the quoted Psalm states: all the days numbered for me are written in his book. He decides when I am born and when I will die. My part is to submit myself to His will (in the knowledge that it is perfect). There are arguments against this stance, but it is the orthodox Christian view, and one to which I subscribe. It has its difficulties, but I believe it is greatly preferable to the alternative.
I haven't ever read Psalm 139 as meaning "God has dished out exactly this set of days" because that rather knocks free-will on the head. I read it rather that he has some foreknowledge of our lives, including how they will end. I share the theological position which says the future is open and unknowable, even by God, though as he is in possession of _all_ the facts, his guesses will be rather better than mine.
I work on the theory that being outside of time He (God) sees it all - beginning, middle and end - but also see 139 as mentioning 'all the days numbered for me, not chosen by me'.
The 'block universe' approach also has problems for free-will because it implies that all my choices have, in some sense, already been made. I'm happiest with an 'open-future' theology, which is after all just an outworking of the kenotic approach - God empties himself of knowledge about the future of this creation.
I loved the discovery of Jesus having 'God moments' with the kenotic bit - a real buzz to think of Jesus having 'revelation' moments like us..
I (like you I assume) struggle with the 'predestined' approach to the future as if all has been set. Mind you, I see this as a moral/ethical issue as much as I see it as theological.
Surely kenosis refers only to Jesus during his earthly life - not once he ascended and certainly not to the 'Eternal Father'. There is no suggestion in Scripture that the Father does not have knowledge of all that is and was and will be. In fact, Jesus himself acknowledged that only the Father has knowledge of the last times - future events This doesn't impinge on free will at all. Foreknowledge does not imply that God is controlling all events, only that he knows what will be.
There is a strong thread in recent theology, especially by scientists such as Peacocke, Polkinghorne, Jeeves etc, which sees the whole of creation as a kenotic act, not only God's emptying as in Paul to the Philippians.
But where is the Biblical evidence? I refer back to the words of Jesus: only the Father knows... If God the Father has emptied himself of all knowledge of the future, how can he know when the end will come?
I don't see a problem with that - God can decide on a time to do something without knowing what will happen between now and then. So can I, come to that.
But the Scripture says he KNOWS - not he will decide.
Sorry, I honestly don't follow - surely God _knows_ when he will bring about the end because he has _decided_ - it's not set for him by anyone else ? And on the subject of Biblical evidence, there is nothing in the Bible saying that suicide is wrong, despite several recorded suicides. All I've seen so far is an appeal to Psalm 139, using an an interpretation which is open to debate.
This argument appears to be going around in circles. If God has decided when the end will happen then he must have some knowledge of the future? Perhaps we should just accept that we aren;t gig to agree on this. Your argument makes no sense to me, and obviously my objections make none to you.
However, one last note - sorry - just because something is recorded in the Bible as having happened (ie suicide) does not confer right-ness upon the act.
There's a difference between knowing that there _is_ a future, and knowing what happens in it. I can say "at 10 o'clock I'm going to bed" without knowing whether the phone will ring before then. In the same way God can say "the universe will end at [whatever time]" because it's him who will be doing it! That doesn't mean he knows exactly what will happen leading up to that time, just that he will step in then and bring it to a close. Sorry, I can't explain my thinking better than that :-(
Agreed, but it would have been an opportunity for Scripture to condemn the acts! Arguments from silence are basically futile, I know, but that's all we've got about suicide in Scripture...
Having moved the comments to this place, I can see there's a great deal to be considered here.
The 'process theology' approach that leads to a kenotic God (is this a theology of an absent, but set to return caretaker God perhaps) is inviting in that it opens some areas and yet as ground is taken in one direction, ground (elsewhere) appears to be lost.
Much here to stimulate and challenge - and now, both stimulated and challenged, I need to go and read a bit, think a lot and pray even more - I will return.
Pax (and thanks),
V
Post a Comment