‘Assisted dying’ is not what is up for debate
HOW sad that the term ‘assisted dying’ has been taken from loved ones, carers and professionals who have for decades worked so hard to develop the art and science of assisting someone to die well. When a person takes their own life the word normally given is suicide. When one takes the life of another we refer to it as killing. The starting point of this requete is surely assisted suicide. Why then the change of language?
Assisting someone to die is not about prolonging life or taking it, though certain decisions may shorten it. What it does involve though is agreeing to walk the journey with that person for as long or as short a time as it takes and doing all available to ensure the best natural death possible.
At the time of writing, an admirable campaign has been launched to help prevent people, in particular adult males, from committing suicide. It is difficult to understand how one of the most outspoken members to sign the requete is so wholeheartedly supporting this excellent initiative to prevent people committing suicide, while at the same time pressing so hard for a law that will enable certain people to commit suicide. It is clear that it is not life itself that is valued but rather the circumstances surrounding it. We must never under-estimate the enormous suffering of those who are suicidal and for some that suffering continues for a lifetime. Indeed it could be described as terminal as for some they will never get better.
Dignity does not lay within the gold of the ‘Lord Mayor’s Chain’ or our position in society. Dignity is embedded within the life of each living person regardless of who we are, what we do or our circumstances. To view a life by the perceived value of how that life is lived is not only immoral but a very dangerous path to tread. History has taught us how frighteningly different some perceptions of the value of life can be.
When referring to some terminal conditions or states it has been suggested by some supporters of this requete that society would not allow an animal to be treated in such a way. Yet the proposed alternative is to do just that. Reduce the dignity of the human person to an animal and put them down.
Choice is spoken of a great deal in this debate and yet those who take their own life invariably feel they have no choice. By choice they would sooner live. It is the pain, darkness and circumstances surrounding their life that they wish to remove but can see no other way. A decision therefore formed on a foundation of no choice is a very fragile one and must raise serious questions. Islanders have countless choices taken away from them for the good of the individual and of others. It’s what civilised governments do.
How extraordinary it is that a group of States members should feel they are in a position to sit and decide what lives are worth living and therefore protecting and those that are not, albeit leaving the final decision to the individual and the professional who will be expected to exercise that law. One thing we may be absolutely certain of: if a law is passed, whatever shape or safeguards are put in place, it will be unrecognisable as the decades pass by and that is something that the members who have signed this requete must take full responsibility for.
MARK LEIGHTLEY,
Vale.
