David Goodall certainly can be said to have had a full life – at over a century old and a scientist, he had to have had an interesting life. But he wanted to end it. Since he could not do it in his home country Australia, he traveled to Switzerland to end his life by assisted suicide. Different countries have different laws relating to end of life decisions; for instance India permits passive euthanasia and Australia permits assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
He was 104 and he was not terminally ill. However, he felt that his quality of life had deteriorated significantly enough to want to end his life. According to a tweet from Philip Nitschke, founder of Exit International, the foundation that helps people looking to end their lives, Goodall passed away peacefully; while listening to Beethoven. Nembutal, a barbiturate was used to bring about the ultimate end.
Goodall turned 104 on 2 may 2018. On the occasion he spoke to the media about having regretted reaching this age; and how he would prefer to be 20 or 30 years younger. He wasn’t happy and wanted to die. While he wasn’t particularly sad, he felt that it would be sad if someone was made to go on living when they didn’t want to. He felt that full citizenship rights should include the right to die of assisted suicide.
It is sometimes a religious argument, at times it is a moral one – that human beings have no right to make life-and-death decisions as those are the decisions that only God ought to make. There is also the fact that many religions forbid suicide and foretell eternal damnation for those to commit suicide. There are those who celebrate life above all else; and feel that it is the one most precious gift that must be treasured. Many agree that permitting assisted suicide devalues humsn life itself.
Many proffer medical reasons as an argument. A doctor takes the Hippocratic oath and promises to save lives; assisted suicide goes against this oath and the primary job of a doctor; to save lives. Others feel that a law permitting assisted suicide puts too much power in the hands of a doctor. Some feel that there is always hope of new treatments and cures being found; as such even the terminally ill should not lose hope.
There is also the apprehension that a law permitting assisted suicide could be misused; and that assisted suicide puts a society on a slippery slope to legalised murder. It could be used by doctors and families to give up on recovery earlier than necessary. There is also the apprehension that it could open the flood gates for everyone who wanted to end their life – those with non critical illnesses, those with mental illnesses such as depression and so on.
People against euthanasia feel that it is a recipe for elder abuse and will give doctors a license to kill. Many feel that the authorities should invest in assisted living and make life easier for the old and disabled rather than permit euthanasia.
As we all have the inviolable fundamental right to life; so should we have the right to life with dignity. When old age or terminal illness causes pain, suffering and the loss of dignity, this is difficult not only for the person themselves, but also for those love them. In such cases death is a welcome release. Prolonged illness can be a significant drain on the economic and emotional resources of a family; assisted suicide can help limit these costs. A hospital bed, nurses and doctors can move on to other patients who are in need.
The vital organs of the person wishing to die can be harvested and could give a new lease of life to several other people. If assisted suicide is illegal, the person may still try to commit suicide and this could have many horrific, unintended consequences. It is much better to legalise and regulate this so that a trained physician can assist with a humane end of life procedure.
In my view though, the clinching argument is that as in all else, this should be a matter of choice. Certainly assisted suicide must be strictly regulated. This has to be a rigorous, informed process involving some amount of counseling, but it must be made legal. In the end one must have the right to make one's choices; one's own life decisions. No one knows or can imagine another's pain and suffering. No one can experience exactly what any other person on earth is going through; nor is right for law makers and law enforcers to presume to decide what is right for individuals to do in such cases. If we feel it is a compassionate to help end the life of a pet who is suffering, should we not display the same compassion for a loved one?
If one is against assisted suicide, their choice is clear – don’t opt for it. But is it right to take away this choice from a person who may be in excruciating pain, with no possible cure in sight and no idea when blessed release would come? If you're against assisted suicide because you dread the thought of life without a beloved person; should you not have the selfless compassion for that person's right to make the right choices for themselves?
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
