ASSISTED SUICIDE...........
The Swiss have got it right!Note: This essay is based on the documentary The Suicide Tourist, premiered as part of 2007 Toronto's HotDocs Festival. I dedicate this essay to Director John Zaritsky, Craig's family, Hoursheed Zareh and Niusha Kompani who watched the documentary with me; and Lou Gehrig himself whose immortal words: "I am the luckiest man on the face of the earth" will forever be in our hearts. This being the first ever essay on the site, I’d also like dedicate it to my dear family.
It was a typical end-of-September day in Zurich, Switzerland, when fifty-nine-year-old Craig, entered a downtown flat, knowing full well that come dinner time, he would no longer be alive. Suffering from terminal Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), he decided that it would be beneficial for him and for his family if he ended his life before his body completely broke down, leaving him paralyzed. Just like other patients suffering from this dreaded disease, he was in anguish both mentally and physically, and as a result turned to assisted suicide as a way of escaping all of his miseries.
In a similar story, George, who suffered from a terminal heart disease, decided that committing suicide was better than living with an intolerable pain that would bestow upon him in the near future. In this case however, Betty, George’s wife of 49 years, also sought assisted suicide despite being a completely healthy individual. She couldn’t live without the love of her life and would like to die in her husband’s arms.
There are two popular but opposing views on this issue. One is the conservative view mostly held by religious doctrines, which fundamentally disagree with the idea or the act of assisted suicide; the second is the pro-choice view, held by John Zaritsky for example, who leaves it up to the person to decide what s/he likes to do with his/her life regardless of his/her physical/mental condition. In this short essay, I show that the middle ground between the two views is best, and that assisted suicide should be made legal in all countries around the world, as long as the person seeking it suffers from a terminal disease that presents an incurable and bleak future for both the patient and his/her family.
Craig’s way of ending the suffering:
Dignitas is a non-profit firm in Zurich that assists individuals to legally end their lives. The process involves various steps including getting several doctors’ approvals that both serve as a general quality check for the diagnosis, and give individuals who aren’t completely happy with their decisions ample time to back out and continue their lives. Craig wasn’t one of these individuals however. He was already suffering and was becoming less mobile and able on a daily basis. It was clear, given his condition, that soon after he would completely be paralyzed having to lie motionless on a bed for the rest of his life. He would of course be conscious of his surrounding, see with his eyes but unable to communicate with others. It is hard to imagine a person being happy in this situation. In fact it is impossible to do so. Even if one, for the sake of argument, assumes that the pain of being immobile itself doesn’t necessarily lead to one suffering, one has to admit that being happy without being able to express it, all but nullifies the feeling and results in a deep sadness which itself cannot be expressed by the patient; The definition of agony.
To me it is quite obvious why one would want to end one’s life right before s/he loses complete mobility. The biggest objection to this stands is preached by various religions around the world. It is said that by allowing such measures, we are in a sense playing the role that is reserved for our creator, God. Discussing this objection is a big issue in and of itself, and I will not do so in details as religious discussions are restricted on this site. For now, I will resort to a hint on where I stand on this issue and its religious implications (if you are interested in further discussing this side of the issue, please send me an email). As Craig mentions in the documentary, whether religious doctrines are legitimate or not is not the concern, the fact is that we play God every day. Doctors and nurses save and/or prolong people’s lives around the world on a daily basis. In fact, Craig would not be alive at the time of his big decision, had it not been for these doctors playing God and using the latest man-made technology and ever advancing science to prolong his life. Playing God maybe wrong, but in my opinion, it is not applicable in this case, as at this stage we are way past the idea of allowing God to take the patient’s life away at an appropriate time. Indeed, that appropriate time may have been as early as the first time Craig had a fever as a kid and was saved by ‘extra strength’ medications.
Moving on, the more interesting and conservative argument against assisted suicide is that of life’s own worth. It is argued that life is intrinsically good, meaning it is good in and of itself. The person, who is alive, is already benefiting from the great gift of life and voluntarily taking it away is downright wrong. I disagree with this stands as well. While I do agree that life and living could be good thing, more on this in a later section, by no means do I take its goodness for granted. No matter how hard I try to convince myself, it is impossible for me to evaluate Craig’s life, or whomever’s life that is permanently paralyzed, and deem such a life as ‘a good thing’. I, and dare I say any other person facing such a situation, would rather be dead than alive in such a horrendous circumstances. As mentioned, it is fitting to ask whether ‘happiness’ actually mean anything if you are not able to express it. Does ‘love’ mean anything if you are not able to give it? Does ‘joy’ mean anything if you are not able to put on a smile? Indeed, in such a case, I would rather not exist than do so in agony; and I haven’t even began to describe how much it would hurt one to see one’s loved ones take care of one every day, without being able to express one’s appreciation.
Betty and the Pro Choice Stands:
At this point some may ask: “so why not allow healthy individuals who are not happy at the moment to seek assisted suicide as well?” I am emphatically against allowing just any individual to take his/her life and hereby I will show that such a stands does not contradict my previous argument. Recall Betty’s story, a lady who is completely healthy but is desperately trying to prove to Swiss’ government that she too should be allowed to die along with her terminally ill husband. I disagree here because a life in which one’s problems are temporary actually is a gift worth keeping. To show this, I’d like to consider two separate hypothetical scenarios.
First of all, for this you need to really use that imagination of yours, if I were somehow able to, for the sake of argument, gather all the people around the world whom due to whatever reasons fail to reach the age that Betty or any other healthy individual has, in one room, could Betty or the said individual, look into these people’s eyes and without feeling any shame describe to them why she wants to end a life that those in front of her so would dearly love to live? I don’t believe that having lost a loved one, or not finding a fulfilling job, or having just broken up with a girlfriend etc. are at all convincing reasons for these unfortunate people, i.e. consider aids riddled, parentless, starving kids in Africa. Think about it; in this situation, a healthy individual’s inability to provide a convincing reason, in my opinion is enough to show that Betty has a gift that should not voluntarily be taken away.
The second category is admittedly a bit of an odd one, and was first presented by Richard Dawkins in his evaluation of various religious doctrines (I think it applies here even though he presents it in another context). The process of human birth is truly a fascinating one. I won’t go into much detail as I am by no means qualified to do so. In order for a baby to be born about nine months after the mother is impregnated, first mother’s egg needs to be fertilized by father’s sperm. However, there isn’t simply one or two so called ‘little swimmers’, there are millions of them. According to the WHO, in a normal sperm count, the number of spermatozoa present should at least reach 40 million, 75 percent of which are furiously swimming forwards with one goal in mind, to fertilize the ovum. Only one succeeds and the process of growth and maturity continues thereafter. I consider each one of these spermatozoa’s a different person. The one that successfully beat out the competition and eventually lead to my birth, could’ve just as easily finished the race behind another one of its competitors; in which case I probably wouldn’t be here writing this essay, I’d be doing something totally different. In fact, it probably wouldn’t be me doing it, another successful spermatozoa, another person. So what does this have to do with our story and assisted suicide? Hypothetically, if I could gather all those people who never got the chance to be born because the spermatozoa that represented them failed to win the race, and have any individual with temporary problems like Betty explain her reasoning for seeking assisted suicide to them, could she do so with a straight face? How could she possibly convince these individuals who never received the gift of life that they are probably better off without it? Why? Cause one’s love of life is about to pass away? Whatever happened to our ability to adapt? Similar to our previous scenario, in my opinion, her inability to explain herself is enough to show that her life is a valuable commodity and should not be taken away. Surely, such problems are temporary and can be resolved if circumstances are adapted to. As a result, I disagree with a completely pro-choice stands, one that is preached by Suicide Tourists’ director John Zaritsky throughout the outstanding documentary. Indeed, life could be a gift, one that’s precious and those not suffering from terminal illness should not be allowed to voluntarily seek assisted suicide.
Note that this point of view does not contradict my original anti-conservative view of assisted suicide. If it were Craig who was put in either of the above mentioned scenarios, he would successfully convince all his audience why they were better off than a completely paralyzed individual. In his situation, for all the reasons I previously went over, life at this point is not a gift worth keeping therefore he should be ethically and legally allowed to discard it.
Conclusion:
This topic of course can be discussed further as there are other angles to cover. For now I think I’ve covered the two most important points. As I’ve argued above, I disagree with those who are completely pro-choice when it comes to assisted suicide. “It’s my life, I should be allowed to do what I want with it” doesn’t sound and isn’t convincing at all. At least it isn’t, when it comes to problems which one could resolve, even if it never comes to fruition, through our ability to adapt to new circumstances. Indeed, there is no way for one to convince the less fortunate who have not lived a fulfilling life, that our lives aren’t worth living. Moreover, it is impossible to do so when it comes to all those people whom could’ve been given the gift of life but didn’t, simply because their ‘little swimmer’ was a bit sluggish in its quest for glory.
In this essay, I have also disagreed with those who reject assisted suicide on basis of life invariably being a gift worth keeping. A life that is to be lived motionless on a bed, in my humble opinion, is far from a gift; it is a nightmare. We should not simply dismiss the notion of assisted suicide in these cases because had it not been for doctors and man-made technology, people suffering from such diseases would not last long enough to live such a nightmare. Forcing such a dreadful fate on someone is selfish and thoughtless. Let them choose their destiny, let them pass away on good terms, and let them not see the bleak future that is awaiting them.
It was a typical end-of-September day in Zurich, Switzerland, when fifty-nine-year-old Craig, entered a downtown flat, knowing full well that come dinner time, he would no longer be alive. Suffering from terminal Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), he decided that it would be beneficial for him and for his family if he ended his life before his body completely broke down, leaving him paralyzed. Just like other patients suffering from this dreaded disease, he was in anguish both mentally and physically, and as a result turned to assisted suicide as a way of escaping all of his miseries.
In a similar story, George, who suffered from a terminal heart disease, decided that committing suicide was better than living with an intolerable pain that would bestow upon him in the near future. In this case however, Betty, George’s wife of 49 years, also sought assisted suicide despite being a completely healthy individual. She couldn’t live without the love of her life and would like to die in her husband’s arms.
There are two popular but opposing views on this issue. One is the conservative view mostly held by religious doctrines, which fundamentally disagree with the idea or the act of assisted suicide; the second is the pro-choice view, held by John Zaritsky for example, who leaves it up to the person to decide what s/he likes to do with his/her life regardless of his/her physical/mental condition. In this short essay, I show that the middle ground between the two views is best, and that assisted suicide should be made legal in all countries around the world, as long as the person seeking it suffers from a terminal disease that presents an incurable and bleak future for both the patient and his/her family.
Craig’s way of ending the suffering:
Dignitas is a non-profit firm in Zurich that assists individuals to legally end their lives. The process involves various steps including getting several doctors’ approvals that both serve as a general quality check for the diagnosis, and give individuals who aren’t completely happy with their decisions ample time to back out and continue their lives. Craig wasn’t one of these individuals however. He was already suffering and was becoming less mobile and able on a daily basis. It was clear, given his condition, that soon after he would completely be paralyzed having to lie motionless on a bed for the rest of his life. He would of course be conscious of his surrounding, see with his eyes but unable to communicate with others. It is hard to imagine a person being happy in this situation. In fact it is impossible to do so. Even if one, for the sake of argument, assumes that the pain of being immobile itself doesn’t necessarily lead to one suffering, one has to admit that being happy without being able to express it, all but nullifies the feeling and results in a deep sadness which itself cannot be expressed by the patient; The definition of agony.
To me it is quite obvious why one would want to end one’s life right before s/he loses complete mobility. The biggest objection to this stands is preached by various religions around the world. It is said that by allowing such measures, we are in a sense playing the role that is reserved for our creator, God. Discussing this objection is a big issue in and of itself, and I will not do so in details as religious discussions are restricted on this site. For now, I will resort to a hint on where I stand on this issue and its religious implications (if you are interested in further discussing this side of the issue, please send me an email). As Craig mentions in the documentary, whether religious doctrines are legitimate or not is not the concern, the fact is that we play God every day. Doctors and nurses save and/or prolong people’s lives around the world on a daily basis. In fact, Craig would not be alive at the time of his big decision, had it not been for these doctors playing God and using the latest man-made technology and ever advancing science to prolong his life. Playing God maybe wrong, but in my opinion, it is not applicable in this case, as at this stage we are way past the idea of allowing God to take the patient’s life away at an appropriate time. Indeed, that appropriate time may have been as early as the first time Craig had a fever as a kid and was saved by ‘extra strength’ medications.
Moving on, the more interesting and conservative argument against assisted suicide is that of life’s own worth. It is argued that life is intrinsically good, meaning it is good in and of itself. The person, who is alive, is already benefiting from the great gift of life and voluntarily taking it away is downright wrong. I disagree with this stands as well. While I do agree that life and living could be good thing, more on this in a later section, by no means do I take its goodness for granted. No matter how hard I try to convince myself, it is impossible for me to evaluate Craig’s life, or whomever’s life that is permanently paralyzed, and deem such a life as ‘a good thing’. I, and dare I say any other person facing such a situation, would rather be dead than alive in such a horrendous circumstances. As mentioned, it is fitting to ask whether ‘happiness’ actually mean anything if you are not able to express it. Does ‘love’ mean anything if you are not able to give it? Does ‘joy’ mean anything if you are not able to put on a smile? Indeed, in such a case, I would rather not exist than do so in agony; and I haven’t even began to describe how much it would hurt one to see one’s loved ones take care of one every day, without being able to express one’s appreciation.
Betty and the Pro Choice Stands:
At this point some may ask: “so why not allow healthy individuals who are not happy at the moment to seek assisted suicide as well?” I am emphatically against allowing just any individual to take his/her life and hereby I will show that such a stands does not contradict my previous argument. Recall Betty’s story, a lady who is completely healthy but is desperately trying to prove to Swiss’ government that she too should be allowed to die along with her terminally ill husband. I disagree here because a life in which one’s problems are temporary actually is a gift worth keeping. To show this, I’d like to consider two separate hypothetical scenarios.
First of all, for this you need to really use that imagination of yours, if I were somehow able to, for the sake of argument, gather all the people around the world whom due to whatever reasons fail to reach the age that Betty or any other healthy individual has, in one room, could Betty or the said individual, look into these people’s eyes and without feeling any shame describe to them why she wants to end a life that those in front of her so would dearly love to live? I don’t believe that having lost a loved one, or not finding a fulfilling job, or having just broken up with a girlfriend etc. are at all convincing reasons for these unfortunate people, i.e. consider aids riddled, parentless, starving kids in Africa. Think about it; in this situation, a healthy individual’s inability to provide a convincing reason, in my opinion is enough to show that Betty has a gift that should not voluntarily be taken away.
The second category is admittedly a bit of an odd one, and was first presented by Richard Dawkins in his evaluation of various religious doctrines (I think it applies here even though he presents it in another context). The process of human birth is truly a fascinating one. I won’t go into much detail as I am by no means qualified to do so. In order for a baby to be born about nine months after the mother is impregnated, first mother’s egg needs to be fertilized by father’s sperm. However, there isn’t simply one or two so called ‘little swimmers’, there are millions of them. According to the WHO, in a normal sperm count, the number of spermatozoa present should at least reach 40 million, 75 percent of which are furiously swimming forwards with one goal in mind, to fertilize the ovum. Only one succeeds and the process of growth and maturity continues thereafter. I consider each one of these spermatozoa’s a different person. The one that successfully beat out the competition and eventually lead to my birth, could’ve just as easily finished the race behind another one of its competitors; in which case I probably wouldn’t be here writing this essay, I’d be doing something totally different. In fact, it probably wouldn’t be me doing it, another successful spermatozoa, another person. So what does this have to do with our story and assisted suicide? Hypothetically, if I could gather all those people who never got the chance to be born because the spermatozoa that represented them failed to win the race, and have any individual with temporary problems like Betty explain her reasoning for seeking assisted suicide to them, could she do so with a straight face? How could she possibly convince these individuals who never received the gift of life that they are probably better off without it? Why? Cause one’s love of life is about to pass away? Whatever happened to our ability to adapt? Similar to our previous scenario, in my opinion, her inability to explain herself is enough to show that her life is a valuable commodity and should not be taken away. Surely, such problems are temporary and can be resolved if circumstances are adapted to. As a result, I disagree with a completely pro-choice stands, one that is preached by Suicide Tourists’ director John Zaritsky throughout the outstanding documentary. Indeed, life could be a gift, one that’s precious and those not suffering from terminal illness should not be allowed to voluntarily seek assisted suicide.
Note that this point of view does not contradict my original anti-conservative view of assisted suicide. If it were Craig who was put in either of the above mentioned scenarios, he would successfully convince all his audience why they were better off than a completely paralyzed individual. In his situation, for all the reasons I previously went over, life at this point is not a gift worth keeping therefore he should be ethically and legally allowed to discard it.
Conclusion:
This topic of course can be discussed further as there are other angles to cover. For now I think I’ve covered the two most important points. As I’ve argued above, I disagree with those who are completely pro-choice when it comes to assisted suicide. “It’s my life, I should be allowed to do what I want with it” doesn’t sound and isn’t convincing at all. At least it isn’t, when it comes to problems which one could resolve, even if it never comes to fruition, through our ability to adapt to new circumstances. Indeed, there is no way for one to convince the less fortunate who have not lived a fulfilling life, that our lives aren’t worth living. Moreover, it is impossible to do so when it comes to all those people whom could’ve been given the gift of life but didn’t, simply because their ‘little swimmer’ was a bit sluggish in its quest for glory.
In this essay, I have also disagreed with those who reject assisted suicide on basis of life invariably being a gift worth keeping. A life that is to be lived motionless on a bed, in my humble opinion, is far from a gift; it is a nightmare. We should not simply dismiss the notion of assisted suicide in these cases because had it not been for doctors and man-made technology, people suffering from such diseases would not last long enough to live such a nightmare. Forcing such a dreadful fate on someone is selfish and thoughtless. Let them choose their destiny, let them pass away on good terms, and let them not see the bleak future that is awaiting them.
Labels: Essay