Kevorkian and All That

Jack Kevorkian’s death has generated a flurry of commentary on the issues with which he was associated, and, indeed, on his ‘meaning’. To Wesley Smith, writing on the Corner, he was a “dark mirror on society.” I replied here:

Wesley, you write that Kevorkian’s more important place in contemporary history was “as a dark mirror that reflected how powerful the avoidance of suffering has become as a driving force in society…” I’ll give you the “dark mirror”. Kevorkian was a very odd bird indeed, but count me less convinced than you about the importance that “society” (at least the politicians that presume to represent it) really attaches to the avoidance (more accurately, alleviation) of suffering. From the excesses of the government’s war against painkillers to the almost insurmountable obstacles that the state places in the way of a terminally ill individual who wishes to end it all but (due to physical impairment) is unable to do so, at least some of the evidence would appear to suggest something rather different.

A couple of commenters assumed my reference to the “war against painkillers” referred to medical marijuana. As I explained in response, it in fact concerned the heavy-handed policing of the prescription certain categories of legal painkiller in this country. This debate should not be seen as a subset of the controversy over narcotics prohibition, rather it is an extension of a far wider discussion: the extent to which the state should involve itself in matters that an individual is able to decide about himself and for himself.

There was a story in the Daily Telegraph recently about a British doctor who had to confront just that:

Police who investigated the death of a young rugby player at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland have called for clearer guidelines for doctors after revealing that his GP had known of his wish to kill himself six months before he died. Detectives who investigated the case of Daniel James said that his GP witnessed a formal declaration of his intentions two weeks before he died at the Dignitas centre in Zurich. But police were only alerted on the day that Daniel flew to Switzerland with his parents, too late to attempt to convince him to change his plans, because the doctor wanted to preserve “patient confidentiality”. Detective Inspector Adrian Todd, of West Mercia Police, called for clearer guidelines for medical professionals and an overhaul of the way assisted suicide cases are handled.

Assisting someone to kill themselves is illegal but revised guidelines, drawn up after Daniel’s case, state that a family member is unlikely to be prosecuted for helping a loved one to die if they were motivated by “compassion”.

Prosecutors eventually decided not to charge Mr and Mrs James with assisting their son’s suicide, despite securing enough evidence for a conviction, Mr Todd said. Daniel, who had represented England at schoolboy and university level, was paralysed from the chest down after suffering a severe neck injury when a rugby scrum collapsed during training in March 2007. Before he died aged 23 on September 12, 2008, he had attempted suicide several times at home. Speaking to an inquiry into the subject of assisted dying, organised by the think-tank Demos, Mr Todd said: “A number of people were aware what was going on before that but we weren’t told until that day.” Mr Todd said he was not criticising any individual agencies, but called for health service staff to be involved at an earlier stage in cases of suspected suicide. Daniel’s GP, who was not named, referred him to a psychiatrist on February 22, 2008, almost seven months before his death, after he told her he intended to go to Dignitas, Mr Todd said. Daniel was later assessed as having the capacity to make decisions for himself.

After seeing Daniel, who lived near Worcester, on several further occasions, the doctor witnessed his signature on a declaration on August 28, 12 days before he flew to Zurich. The document stated: “I Daniel James of the above address intend to travel to Switzerland on 9th September 2008 for an assisted suicide.

“I am aware that in the event of my death my family wish for my body to be returned to England for a funeral service and cremation. In order to minimise their distress I am happy to give my consent for my GP to provide my details to the local coroner to reduce any complications that may occur.”

Writing in Crisis magazine, Barbara Nicolisi’s response to what she sees as a ”frightening cultural trend” of pro-euthanasia advocacy in the media is to argue that “the latest human-killing bandwagon” might be overturned by a “shrewd and all-encompassing cultural strategy” that includes developing “emotionally winning language”, including, she suggests, using terms such as “elder abortionists”.

Elder abortionists?

Most interesting, however, are her references to “the infinite blessings that come through suffering…If we lose the fight on euthanasia, we lose our souls. By removing suffering and the meaning of suffering from our culture, we make the final step in denying and defying our creature-hood.”

I’m all for stoicism and the stiff upper lip, but as for “the meaning of suffering”, well…