If someone is really considering suicide, doesn't it only seem right for people to step and offer them support and assistant?
Members of the Final Exit Network don't think so-- and in fact, they do the complete opposite: they give people a way to kill themselves and even help them to do so.
The Network, based in Marietta, Georgia, is an American volunteer organization that assists people suffering with life-threatening diseases commit suicide. As a member of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, has a Web site and a suicide manuel. They charge an annual $50 fee to its members. They believe "that individuals suffering from intolerable illnesses deserve a dignified death as it may prevent a painful death as a result of the illness." So because of this, they provide "lawful instruction" and "emotional support" to individuals looking to commit suicide as a result of their illness.
About a year ago, four officials of the group were arrested on "charges of racketeering and assisted suicide," and to follow up on these charges, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation sent an undercover agent to the organization.He posed as a cancer patient looking to the group to help him commit suicide. In the investigators reports, "the network members instructed him to buy a helium tank and a plastic 'exit mask'." Using this method, the patient holds the mask up to their face and a member of the organization holds down their hands to prevent them from removing the mask. As a result of the helium, the patient would "lose consciousness within second and die within minutes" then, "the guides would remove evidence from the scene."
This scenario is absolutely repulsive. Patients turning to this organization need positive support from physicians and trained professionals, they do not need to be surrounded by people advocating they take their own life. Though the law does not always coincide with true ethicality on many issues, it does this time. And there is a reason why assisted suicide is illegal in all but two states: it is incredibly unethical. Suicide is a devastating consequence of serious depression, a disease in and of itself that merits its own treatments. Patients who turn to assisted suicide need alternatives, and organizations like the Final Exit Network to not provide this. Instead, they "are people who instead of pulling you back from the ledge, they shove you off," says Stephen Drake, a representative for the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet.
In response to the question of whether of not what they are doing is legal, the groups advocates argue that "the members buy their own materials and conduct the suicide themselves...The person does everything themselves...They don the hood. They tie it around their neck. They reach forward. They turn on the gas.”
But the legality of the organization is not in question. Rather, it is necessary to see how unethical the situation truly is. Rather than provided the necessary support for patients who believe that suicide is their only option, the Final Exit Network provides them with the means to end their own life.
5 comments:
Oh whoops, I forgot to post my sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/us/11suicide.html?pagewanted=2&ref=assisted_suicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Exit_Network
http://www.finalexitnetwork.org/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/us/01montana.html?ref=assisted_suicide
I have to say that I must agree with you on the repulsive and inhibiting nature of assisted suicide. This practice not only eliminates any potential people have at recovering, but cuts short the life experiences these people may have had otherwise.
The best example of this is Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University Randy Pausch. Professor Pausch was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2006, and was given a terminal sentence in August of 2007. According to his physicians, Pausch had but only “3 to 6 months of good health left”. Pancreatic cancer is known to cause excruciating to the back and abdominal region, leaving many patients unable to walk or stand up.
Someone on the opposing side may argue that Pausch should be allowed to have assistance in the ending of his life, as his future looks horrible pain filled and not worth living. Yet in spite of all of these adversities, perhaps the most fulfilling and memorable period in Pausch’s life was during the last few months. Pausch gave his most famous lecture (broadcasted on Oprah) “The Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”, and wrote the New York Times best-selling novel The Last Lecture during the terminal stages of his cancer. He never gave up, and continued to inspire people even at the very end of his life.
We should never underestimate the power of human potential, even in the face of terminal illness. Though it was obvious he was in extreme pain, Pausch continued to be his joking, witty self, and grew even more inspiring to his students, colleagues, and family. This man achieved more in 6 months of his life than most people do in a lifetime, and if assisted suicide were allowed in Professor Pausch’s case he may not have achieved all that he had because he cut the strings on himself too soon.
Sources:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733756_1736194,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PersonOfWeek/story?id=3633945&page=1
I agree with you Victoria that, insofar as Professor Pausch is concerned, assisted suicide was not the correct option for him: his lecture was very powerful and moving, and it made it clear to me as well that he accomplished a great deal in his final days. I hesitate though to conclude, as Cece does, that assisted suicide is never an ethically valid option and that people should never have the right to look for help in order to take their own lives.
I think this is very much an issue that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and that a blanket statement either for or against assisted suicide seems in my mind to gloss over the complex nature of the issue. For someone with a terminal disease who is not in intense pain or who by strength of will is able to overcome their pain and find happiness despite of it, that is to say, for someone who feels that there is a reason to live, surely they should be allowed to live in peace, and anyone who tries to lead them down the path of suicide is acting unethically. But there are some terminal diseases that are not so forgiving: if someone is in intense pain, confined to a hospital bed, and not able to interact with or even recognize their friends and family, it is very reasonable that they might rationally conclude that their life is not worth living. And who is to tell them otherwise?
People who try to commit suicide out of momentary depression should indeed be counseled, supported, and prevented from killing themselves, precisely because depression is a temporary and treatable psychological state from which someone can emerge. But for someone who suffers from a debilitating and incurable disease, someone who will never be able to emerge from their suffering because their condition is permanent instead of temporary, if they decide that they would prefer not to live than to live in their current state, it is unlikely that any amount of time or counseling will change this. Of course I don’t think that pro-suicide groups should hound everyone with a terminal disease and try to convince them to kill themselves, but I think that if someone reaches the conclusion of their own accord that they would rather die than live, then to deny this option to them is tantamount to forcing them to live under the grip of curable pain and consequently is unethical.
I agree with Alex in that this issue should be decided upon a case-to-case basis. The issue of preserving dignity, and preventing unnecessary suffering can in some cases be enough justification for assisted suicide.
Dr. Anne Turner was a retired doctor who had an incurable degenerative disease called supranuclear palsy. At age 66 she faced a future in a wheelchair, had difficulty speaking, and had become unable to undertake many day-to-day tasks independently. Her brother and husband had experienced similar degenerative conditions, so she observed how much their quality of life deteriorated and how undignified they became. She argued that she had given it much thought, and knew that death would be a release. She suggested that her disease compromised her quality of life, but also her sense of self-respect and dignity: "I notice that people talk to me as though I am a bit simple."
In late 2005 she attempted to commit suicide using sleeping pills, anti-depressants and a plastic bag. This finally convinced her family of the gravity of her intentions, so they reluctantly allowed her to travel to Zurich, Switzerland in 2006 where she was given drugs used to end own life.
Surely in Anne's case, she could have been spared the pain and degradation of her failed suicide attempt by simply being allowed to kill herself using more dignified means? Anne was not suffering from any mental condition - it was purely a physical ailment that afflicted her. So the decision that she reached on her own ought to be respected, especially due to her own medical background and her ability to fully understand the cause for and extent of her disease. She made an informed decision, which was that she felt her disease compromised her happiness and sense of self to the extent that she no longer wished to live.
If Anne had been allowed to commit suicide in a controlled, humane and legal way, perhaps she would have been spared much anguish and suffering in her final days, rather than desperately attempting to take her own life unaided? If she had been allowed to plan her assisted suicide, she would have been able to preserve her sense of dignity to the greatest extent, and feel more in control of her life. It seems unconscionably cruel to have denied her that right and force her to attempt suicide in such an undignified way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4625538.stm
Post a Comment