Monday 20 August 2012

Locked-in syndrome and Assisted dying

I've let this issue for a few days to let the immediate responses pass through and now, as they've done that, I thought I'd throw in my sixpence worth of opinion.

A warning
I would like to move away from the 'all life is sacred' argument (I'm a Christian and so I think we might take that as read, especially in the light of the brand of Christian that I am) and deal with other responses and considerations.

First and foremost I have to say that I despair of those who take themselves off to Switzerland and check out of this life. My despair is increased even more by those who do so before they become ill or their (assumed, desired or demanded) 'quality of life' is impaired (taking for instance Fred and Joan Downes - she had a few weeks left and he had non-life threatening, 'old-age' issues). I also despair of those who find themselves in dire situations through accident or illness such that they are paralysed either completely or in part. My despair is e=increased by the fact that I have worked with men and women who are disabled, paralysed and coping with limb loss and yet manage to have full, and contributing, lives despite this. Seems to me that there are many who simply fold rather than 'man up' and this is, as I understand it, wrong. But hey ho, it is their choice at the end of the day - it's just a poor one.

So back to the issue in hand (hooray the reader cries).

Last week, the High Court turned down Tony Nicklinson's request for doctors to be allowed to help end his life without the risk of prosecution. One of the responses to this was that the issue should be decided upon by the british Parliament and the law regarding this issue settled by them and this I think is the height of lunacy. Ask the politicians to decide whether life can be taken? Why on earth would we want to ask a bunch of what are, generally speaking, a bunch of partisan morons such a question - the world gets madder on a day by day basis. Worse still, I have no confidence that a moral outcome would win the day, after all what generally comes out of Westminster is a pile of vote-winning response rather than making proper, integrity-laden, stands.

I have to laugh at the many who are claiming that the 'religious' (who on earth are they I wonder, I don't seem to meet them in my daily grind?) are hijacking and deciding on this issue. I have to weep at the many who would like to 'ease suffering' and engage in 'rationalising care' and end with the postscript of 'suffering families'.

Here are the words of one who suffers:

"The amount of people who tell my dad he's cruel keeping my mum alive! My mum isn't ventilated, or in any way kept alive artificially. She's fed and cleaned and turned (to stop bed sores). The only way to cause her death is to stop food and water, which sounds like a horrific and drawn out way to die. I'd hate to think politicians would have the power to do that to my mother. And I think they probably would do now that the cost cutting exercise in the NHS has now reached a stage where I'm actually being advised by medical personnel NOT to check my blood sugar! I've had to put up one hell of a fight just to get enought test strips to test my blood sugar at least once per day. This country's gone to the dogs... no, ignore that last statement, I have dogs, they're caring creatures!:

The decision made last week was the right decision for as many as can elect to take themselves off to Switzerland there are more for whom the decision would be made for them. The many who have no voice and for whom life would not continue should others have the right to decide for them. Those who struggle and who families tell me that removing them from this earth would be easier for them and would be 'cost-effective' too. It was the right decision because once we open the doors we provide a means of 'rationalising' costs and these and 'family sensitivities' are often the same result - let them die rather then help them to live as best they can until life is no more.

We live in a world which is dominated by freedom of choice, even when the exercise of our freedoms results in actions and attitudes that are, plain and simply, wrong. That some might rationalise, excuse or even explain with eloquent words and high-sounding philosophies how it would make them happy to engage in something, the outcome is wrong and should be stood against by society.

Sadly, the move towards a secular society means that the moral compass no longer reads true and this has nothing to do with the influence of the religious but the diminishing influence of those people of faith.

But once again, we find many who have a faith remaining tacet when they should be speaking up for the weaker and most vulnerable amongst us.

7 comments:

Ray Barnes said...

What about the ones who are weak and vulnerable and who make the decision themselves that they can no longer bear their suffering.
As you are so fond of saying Vic, we cannot know another's pain and are therefore not in a position to judge.
Sometimes merely moral judgements are not enough.
Morality is a cold bedfellow for someone who is dying slowly inch by painful, humiliating inch.
We are not God, not perfect, not always able to do what the world and in particular, the Christian world deems to be the right thing.

Undergroundpewster said...

Caring for the sick and dying is a labor of love. Hastening their demise removes yet another of our duties to the Lord.

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

My experience, thus far, has seen the weak and vulnerable generally not only keep on living but cling to it will vigour. The only time this has changed has been after family or medical intervention when the response changed to, "I don't want to be a burden!" came in.

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

Not sure what happened bu the system wouldn't let me post my second part of the above response. So here it is now:

Morality is an awful bedfellow for the terminally ill in that it, generally speaking, imposes someone else's morality on them. It might be the Church, relatives or the state but this doesn't render the moral position any less moral or weaken the realities behind it. The key is to explore and engage in ways which enable the fullest life possible to be lived until it is no longer an option.

This is why I struggle with a relatively healthy individual who chooses to exit because they want control of their demise and choosing to leave whilst still (relatively speaking) in the upper half of ability and quality is little more than an abuse of that life.

On the other side of the equation we have those who would be dead should nature be unaided by scientific means and this brings in more questions and positions. If, by removing a plug, a person ceases to live then the question has to be 'to what purpose are they being kept alive and is there a benefit for them?' Part of my role sees me engaged with people who are placed on 'pathway' which means we are making their demise easier in terms of pain relief and such. To act to bring about their death would, obviously, be something quite different.

I have experienced the situation where I have removed the life support from a person (in every case they kept on ticking - phew!) and there is something to letting nature take its course. But this, along with DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) and other issues and surely something to be discussed within the context rather than now.

Thanks for the comments guys- not an easy one and not one which I would want to see become aq vote-puller, hence my original post.

pax

Anonymous said...

They put animals to sleep when there quality of life is n longer good or they are in pain. Animals and humans both have spirits and are one and the same so why shouldn't they be treated the same. I think the man last week should have won his case and been allowed to die the way he wanted just as democracy says we can live the way we want.

Everyone has the right to live and die as they please and no one has the right to deny them that right. Sexuality, drug use, alcohol consumption and the way we live our everyday lives and choose to end our life are is our right. The day when the Biblebashers and dogooders stop being that will be a great day for all the normal people

UKViewer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
UKViewer said...

Vic, I support whole heartedly what you say.

This issue is troublesome for many as it raised so many questions of ethics and challenges me greatly.

But I can't get away from thinking that intrinsically, killing someone is wrong, whatever reason we use to justify it.

I know that it's hard on those suffering and their families, but I just can't get over that issue of killing someone.