I was initially pleased to see Tony Akkermans’ reply to my article on why humanists should join their Christian brethren to oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia (ASE). The purpose of my article was to inspire debate and open up a conversation. Akkermans’ reply to me indicates that my article was at least successful in ruffling some feathers. However, I hope that others have engaged more deeply with my article than has Mr Akkermans, who, rather than analysing my points, simply expresses exasperation that anyone could make them.
Akkermans begins by telling us all that a ‘basic humanist principle…is the belief that everybody should have agency over their own body and be able to make choices that are best for them.’ That’s a new one on me. I assumed that what unites us as humanists is that we do not believe in God or that a supreme creator is responsible for the wonderful history of humanity.
Akkermans might see that I agree that everyone should have agency over their own bodies. And if he will forgive me for the religious reference (he appears to think I am a ‘crypto-Christian’ anyway): ‘Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.’ (Luke 2:10-11). You already DO have control over your own body. No one can stop a determined suicide. No competent and free adult should be force-fed or treated against their will. Even Tony Nicklinson—who had ‘locked-in syndrome’—eventuated his own death by refusing food and drink.
What we are talking about is the choice of someone else about whether we should live or die. That is what is meant by ‘assisted’. In every euthanasia/assisted suicide regime in the world, the choice—our ultimate choice—must be approved by doctors. I argue that we must stop these third parties from deciding which lives are worth living and which are not. And I argue that when someone expresses suicidal wishes, our general position should be to assume that their life is valuable (though some aren’t) and to encourage them to live rather than give a counsel of despair or—worse—offer to push them off the proverbial ledge. That, and not because I’m a crypto-Christian or blind to people’s suffering, is why I’m opposed to legalised ASE.
Mr Akkermans lays into my book, which he admits he hasn’t read, by referencing two critical reviews. This is akin to writing critical accounts of hotels not stayed at or restaurants not eaten at on Tripadvisor. But I wish he would have read it. Had he asked, I would happily have sent him a copy. Instead of flinging terms like ‘despicable’ and ‘highly condescending and offensive’ at me, we might have engaged in real debate.
Mr Akkermans accuses me of making ‘several unsubstantiated allegations’ (without seeming to appreciate the irony, he lists just one). Perhaps I could have explained the point about utility more clearly. How do doctors decide which suicidal wishes should be honoured and which should not when faced with a request for ASE? It is on their assessment of whether a life is worth living. Otherwise, we would have to honour the suicidal wishes of a 24-year-old on the basis of unbearable suffering because of a failed love affair just as we would honour the suicidal wishes of an 86-year-old in the throes of a progressive disease. It is either the person’s choice or it is the doctor’s, and if the latter makes the decision it is based on an assessment of whether that life is worthwhile not only to the person but to the world. That—besides a simple cost-benefit analysis—is what is meant by utility.
Morally, I regard assisting a suicide as equivalent to capital punishment. There are cases where a person is clearly better off dead but that does not make the principle right. The case of a prisoner on death row is subject to intense legal scrutiny and the authorities take years to review it—but that doesn’t make it right. Nor is killing an autistic man because his life is wretched right. There may be nuanced arguments for either, but I think we should retain the principle that it’s wrong in both cases.
Mr Akkermans defends Canada, where I was born and raised (I have also lived in the Netherlands, where Mr Akkermans was born and which he also discusses). First, ASE was not demanded by the people or even by politicians but by a judge. In 2019, another single judge decided that the existing criteria were too narrow to be constitutional and that the law must be expanded to include disabled people. An obedient Canadian parliament passed legislation, though they might have used the ‘notwithstanding clause’ to stop the judge’s decision from becoming law.
What has it done to Canada? It has changed the culture to one that sees death as a solution to social problems. Mr Akkermans cites one statistic showing that 42% of Canadians support ASE for mental illness only; what he doesn’t tell us is that in that same survey, significant numbers agreed that medical assistance in dying should be extended to those living in poverty (27%, with the figure rising to 41% among people aged 18-34), the homeless (28%), and the disabled (50%).
I am certainly not the only atheist to look upon what is happening in Canada and elsewhere with horror. Readers might be interested in a film made by another atheist, recently shown on the BBC, which gives an often-ignored perspective from a disability point of view: Liz Carr’s Better Off Dead?
1 comment
Hi! This is my mail / personal story which I wrote to Lord Falconer, who is designing the assisted dying bill:
I would like to ask you please to URGENTLY consider the LONGTERM-suffering people when designing the assisted dying bill.
It is endlessly cruel to allow only the SHORT-term suffering people to end their suffering, whilst keeping us LONGTERM suffering in senseless prolonged excruciating agony!
I am suffocating slowly which is the most cruel thing anyone can go through, accompanied by post-viral poisoning (your body decays alive bit by bit in unmanageable pain) which is under-researched and therefore does not give me a “terminal” diagnosis, so no end to my cruel suffering in sight!
Due to multiple post-viral damage I have to shield of viruses for ever alone trapped in a tiny flat (surrounded by drug dens with dangerous dogs, and gassed out by smoking neighbours, a stinking sewer and a diesel train, also being allergic to nearly everything), cannot go to medical appointments or dentist and cannot have visitors due to the danger of further infections.
I am suffering physically AND mentally as much as it can be! For 6 years I have been begging medical personal as well as the Government to have my suffering ended by death. Unfortunately all on dead ears! Which leaves me to pray that I get cancer soon in hope to be put in a coma, which is bed-blocking, and not available on demand anyway. More and more Brits have to decide to starve themselves to death in order to escape EVEN bigger suffering, which is INSANELY cruel to allow this even! One day it will be known for what it is: torture by the state!
If the “lethal potion” was available to me at ANY time RELIABLY, then I could even risk to go for more medical appointments for a chance to improve my situation, to sort out my permanent agonising tooth ache (although my income might not stretch to it) or risk a hug from a friend! But catching another virus would only increase my suffering which I can not afford at this point, so I have to keep suffering, can neither go direction life nor direction death! This is TOO CRUEL TO BEAR FOR ANYONE!
And there are so many suffering people out there without a voice because they are too weak to campaign, so I am writing in the name of countless people who pray for the end of their suffering, knowing many of them myself!
Also I had several friends who committed a very messy and most cruel suicide because of the lack of assistance! And yet they were the lucky ones, because if your suicide attempt fails, you end up even more crippled than before on suicide watch and nobody will listen to you anymore!
To the people (often disabled people) who don’t understand assisted dying:
Unbearable inhumane excruciating agony should be a CHOICE!
Under the current medieval sadistic law we are DICTATED to suffer!
Our bodies are kidnapped by the government and tortured AGAINST OUR WILL! And if you say you do NOT want autonomy over your own body, then you are lying!
And to the religious people: If “God” dictates humans to suffer, than he is a sadistic monster, even if it is just for creating Parliamentarians who VOTE (!) to keep mankind in prolonged senseless excruciating agony!
Wealthy and middle class people can end their suffering at Dignitas Zurich. They also have people to help them travel there. But if you are sick, alone and poor you can NOT do this! It is a discrimination against the poor once again! In fact I cannot even get a passport since you have to appear in person now because of the finger prints!
It is illegal to torture animals, but even though we human beings can articulate ourselves, there are still Parliamentarians who actually vote to keep the nation in excruciating agony! To the suffering it feels no less than sadistic and monstrous!
PLEASE I AM BEGGING YOU, give us a GENEROUS assisted dying law like the Benelux states have!
Regarding safeguards: Persuading somebody into assisted dying should be sentenced like murder, which should prevent people from committing the crime. After all we don’t stop eating, just because somebody could poison our meal. It would be as crazy and as inhumane as keeping us suffering!
Regarding “protecting people who feel like a burden or don’t want to spend their kids’ inheritance”:
I do NOT want to keep suffering because there could be someone somewhere who cannot quite make their mind up yet or doesn’t know what to do with their money (which will end up at Dignitas anyway)!
That sounds like a bad joke!
Regarding safeguards for medical staff: Switzerland has done it for 82 years! The patient signs and takes the potion on camera, with additional witnesses. For the patients who cannot do this themselves anymore: ANY kind of communication on camera expressing the will to die should be RESPECTED and acted on! Because nobody is suffering for them!
At the very least we should have an organisation like the swiss EXIT who take a low annual membership fee for health related advice, with the right of free assisted suicide after 3 years of membership. But then there are people who can not bear to suffer for 3 more years.
I have still a few good organs. I could save a few lives with my death. Perhaps giving us a chance of live donation?
People are worried that their relationship with their doctor could change; but there could be independent assisted dying clinics like in Canada!
People are worried about the “vulnerable”. But that is us, the suffering! Nobody in the world is more vulnerable than those who suffer unbearably!
Where are OUR safeguards??
We have NONE. Whilst your safeguard/piece of mind is Dignitas.
Every single second of excruciating agony is one second too much!
Thank you for listening and please don’t forget: Least of us will be lucky enough to die in a quick accident. Most of us will suffer senseless excruciating agony for a long time before being relieved by death. It will be YOU one day, and it comes quicker than you think!
In fact it should be illegal to reproduce into a country where it is not our first Human Right to end our suffering! Because at the moment our birth is our biggest trap!
There is such a thing as SLOW death! There are countless conditions which are unknown, unrecognised, under-researched and therefore not appearing in medical school books. There is NO pain management and NO palliative care! You can NOT measure suffering, so it should NEVER be made dependant on diagnosis, age (I am 55) or any time span! That is medieval and cruel!
It is IMPOSSIBLE for non-suffering people to understand permanent progressive excruciating agony! Therefore non-suffering people should NOT be allowed to vote AGAINST a generous assisted suicide law!
All we want is AUTONOMY over our OWN body! NOBODY gets something out of ME suffering! Suffering is NOT life! And ending suffering is NOT killing! It is love, compassion and humanity!
Sincerely
Marion
And to Kevin Yuill:
You wouldn’t be the first or last Professor who spends his life preaching against ending suffering, to then end up at Dignitas (and your friends and family too).
You just don’t know it YET!
So don’t deny the same right to the poor and infirm!
P.S.: My body is non of your business. So stay out of it!
Your email address will not be published. Comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. Required fields are marked *
Donate