Leaving aside the euphemisms, assisted suicide is what’s required
LET’S start with semantics. A variety of terms have been used by correspondents in the discussion on assisted dying. So let me be clear, what is required is assisted suicide. To suggest otherwise is just obfuscation. Euthanasia, a euphemism. Assisted dying, I cannot differentiate between it and suicide.
A simple law for a complicated set of circumstances. If you are of sound mind, go before a panel and state your case. The prime example of this would be a diagnosis of less than six months to live, an example that is followed in many jurisdictions that have an assisted dying law. However, I would like it to go further as there are many diseases and conditions that severely reduce your quality of life. To me that is the key. If I find my quality of life to be unacceptable through disease or a multiplicity of conditions, then I would like the right to end it at the time and place of my choosing. I can of course do that quite legally now but the means available are messy and unpredictable. An acceptable quality of life would of course vary with the individual. I would find an inability to care for myself without too much outside help a heavy burden. It would of course be a question of degree. I see no joy in being fed by tube and being doubly incontinent.
To answer some objections, ‘only a minority would want this’ – I agree. But recent legislation has been passed for very small minority groups. ‘It goes against Christian or other religious beliefs’ – I agree. But no one has suggested it be compulsory. ‘It puts the vulnerable at risk’ – not if you put adequate safeguards in the interview process. ‘The medical profession are against it’ – possibly, but again no doctor who opposes it should be made to participate. I would like to believe there would be an enlightened few who would help. ‘We have excellent palliative care’ – yes, but for me (see above ‘quality of life’), pain isn’t necessarily the problem. As regards the cost of such a law. I see no reason why, if you are seriously considering a dignified end, a fee to see the panel couldn’t be charged. Most of what I would like to see is probably wishful thinking, but please, for the sake of compassion and common decency, let us have, at least, the basic law.
I see today (Guernsey Press, 30 April) that even a well-educated professional can get confused over this issue. John Langlois is quoted as being against such a law but then goes on to say that doctors should be able to administer opiates towards the end of a patient’s life without fear of repercussions. Confused? Or perhaps just conflicted. A law would clarify any such dilemma.
J. BUCK
Wyona, Gibauderie