It was assisted dying day on tv last night and in the press in the last week. To sum up:
The controversialist, novelist Martin Amis, advertising a book, complained about a tsunami of older people with dementia.
The original interview was in the Times:
He is painfully aware that his time as a writer is running out. “Writers die twice: once when the body dies, and once when the talent dies,” he wrote recently in a review of Nabokov’s The Original of Laura. “Medical science has again over-vaulted itself,” he says now, “so most of us have to live through the death of our talent. Novelists tend to go off at about 70. And I’m in a funk about it. I’ve got myself into a real paranoid funk about it, how talent dies before the body.”
I can’t help feeling he’s being a leedle dramatic here, but his hatred at not feeling “100%” is genuine. He is disgusted at the problem of the ageing population: “How is society going to support this silver tsunami? There’ll be a population of demented very old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops. I can imagine a sort of civil war between the old and the young in 10 or 15 years’ time.”
Amis’s solution is typically extreme: mass euthanasia. “There should be a booth on every corner where you could get a Martini and a medal,” he says. In fact, he was thinking about it only last year, when his stepfather died “very horribly”, he says. “He thought he was going to get better. But he didn’t. I think the denial of death is a great curse. We all wanted to assist him… It was clearly a lost battle.”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6996980.ece
The Guardian has a video of him talking about this afterwards; he says he is a fan of euthanasia:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/video/2010/feb/01/martin-amis-euthanasia-assisted-suicide
What is particularly striking about this comment is that it is more about ageing and dementia rather than assisted dying. This is a very negative view about ageing and its impact on society, and a very excluding view about older people and people with dementia. However, he has had some sympathy for this point of view, as opposed to the reaction to his euthanasia comment. It’s alright to feel that all the older people are a blot on the landscape then? I think there might actuially be a majority for this. Our media do not seem to have realised what, sixewise, an important population group we are; they are still into the importance of catering fro youth because they are the future. Well just remember that older people of 60, like Martin Amis are the future, probably fro the next thirty years.
Then there was quite an interesting debate reported in the Observer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/31/assisted-dying-debate-euthanasia
This included Ilora Finlay doing her defence of care and palliative care; a sample:
IF: The whole of palliative care is about trying to help people to make choices that are right for them, to enhance the quality of their life when they have it. That is hard work. The minute you start saying you can take shortcuts in care or you can leave people or give them the impression that things can’t be done for them, then you drive them further into despair. What you’re presenting them with is not about real choices in care, you’re giving them a choice of either staying in despair or being dead. I don’t think that is a choice.
I think this is a really good point: it is important not to polarise the issue between despair and death; there are other alternatives.
Listening to her on Today, on BBC Radio 4 on Monday morning, as they were promoting both the Panorama and Terry Pratchett programmes on BBC1 that night, I found it interesting that she was arguing to take the issue out of healthcare; make it a legal process, so that trust in doctors is not affected by providing assisted deaths. Is she recognising that the public and media pressure for some sort of provision for assisted dying makes a change in the law inevitable, and she’;s beginning to set out the stall for the way it should be organised. Of course. she was also connecting with Pratchett, because he is arguing for a tribunal to make the decisions, including medical and legal involvement, as you can see in my excerpts from his speech below.
The Panorama programme then had an extended interview with Kay Gilderdale, found not guilty of attempted murder of her daughter last week (she has previously been found guilty and sentenced for assisting suicide). The 31 year old daughter was very disabled by serious and chronic ME and had injected herself with large doses of morphine, explicitly trying to kill herself. When she seemed distressed her mother crushed up more tablets and did other things, including getting advice about how to follow through. Because she did this at her own decision, rather than just accepting the course of her daughter’s actions, this put her outside the Director of Public Prosecutions’s guidelines for deciding not to prosecute. See my post on Saturday, October 10th, 200 for information.She is not the only person recently, since Frances Inglis was given a life sentence for a ‘mercy’ killing of her brain-damaged son.
There are excerpts from Kay’s interview on the Panorama website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/
This is a news account, including an interview with a neighbour who speaks of Frances’s feelings, of the Frances Inglis case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8466140.stm
Panorama also commissioned a public opinion poll which showed that for a terminally ill patient, 75% of people thought that family and friends (or medical professionals) should not suffer prosecution; opinion was evenly balanced where there was chronic pain. This suggests that for many people, the issue of whether patinet is terminally ill is an important factor. This reflects an unreal perception, since as Ilora Finlay said in the Observer debate cited above that deciding when someone is terminally ill is quite hard.
Article about the poll: http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8487000/8487768.stm
Poll details here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/01_02_10_Poll_results.pdf
The main event last night was Terry Pratchett’s Richard Dimbleby lecture (mostly actually read by the actor Tony Robinson, since Pratchett was not well enough to be able to get through such a long )text. It was a beautifully turned speech, and there is a shortened version in the Guardian today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/02/terry-pratchett-assisted-suicide-tribunal
The new thing about this, to me, is the suggestion of an assisted dying tribunal:
That is why I and others have suggested some kind of strictly non-aggressive tribunal that would establish the facts of the case well before the assisted death takes place. This might make some people, including me, a little uneasy as it suggests the government has the power to tell you whether you can live or die. But, that said, the government cannot sidestep the responsibility to ensure the protection of the vulnerable and we must respect that…
The members of the tribunal would be acting for the good of society as well as that of the applicant – horrible word – to ensure they are of sound and informed mind, firm in their purpose, suffering from a life-threatening and incurable disease and not under the influence of a third party. It would need wiser heads than mine, though heaven knows they should be easy enough to find [no, I think actually is will be tough to come up with a procedure that is not horrifically bureaucxratic], to determine how such tribunals are constituted. But I would suggest there should be a lawyer, one with expertise in dynastic family affairs who has become good at recognising what somebody really means and indeed, if there is outside pressure. And a medical practitioner experienced in dealing with the complexities of serious long-term illnesses.
I would also suggest that all those on the tribunal are over 45[bit ageist that; many young people are sensitive to these issues too], by which time they may have acquired the rare gift of wisdom, because wisdom and compassion should, in this tribunal, stand side-by-side with the law. The tribunal would also have to be a check on those seeking death for reasons that reasonable people may consider trivial or transient distress. I dare say that quite a few people have contemplated death for reasons that much later seemed to them to be quite minor. If we are to live in a world where a socially acceptable “early death” can be allowed, it must be allowed as a result of careful consideration.
Let us consider me as a test case. As I have said, I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice.
This proposal speaks to one of my concerns about possible changes in the law, because I think that once these things become official in some way they also have to become bureaucratised, so that they are no longer personal decisions by those involved, but will mean officials, no matter how qualified and experienced, having to go through complex and time-consuming procedures to implement intricate guidelines. Ilora Finlay’s point in the Observer debate is also relevant, that a legal change will also lead to a change in social attitudes, which will make killing more acceptable in a variety of ways.
Amis’s point and another Finlay insight is that really this is all about care. people do not much want to be cared for for a substanital lump of their life, the care we can provide is not good enough; resources are limited and will increasingly be rationed. So are we proposing to assist in people’s deaths because we are not willing to provide the best care? At least in these cases a person providing outstanding care and clearly, as with Frances Inglis, ‘with love in their heart’ they are reacting to a personl predicament. But will official assisted dying become an acceptable practice in a policy context where we are not prepared to provide enough care services and good enough care serviecs.
And a social work view? Social workers are going to be involved, because whatever the decision-making process, social information and social records will be used as part of it. Either they will be sent out to make a report, like adoption, guardian ad litem, and social histories, or their past records will be sued to see what family attitudes are, because they will be the profession that has kept records of families.
And these matters are social and policy matters: how much care are we prepared to provide to increasing numbers of people whom the media, like Amis, find smelly and not very interesting? And who is going to provide it? There will not be enough carers and care serviecs to go round; there are not enough now. So is no services the reason we want to go for assisted dying?
I think most social workers instinctively agree that people should have the choices. but how far does poor care mean that the reality of their choices is ‘no choice’. And most of the people arguing for assisted dying currently are strong-minded middle-class people who can think through and support their own opinions. Pratchett talked about granny going and banging he stick on the tribunal’s desk. Not of lot of dying people have that capability. He talks about early decisions, but that’s only relevant to a few well-prepared, long-term disabilities; what about most of the people that I meet that are not thinking in the long-term about what is going to happen to them? Will the tribunal clog up with bureaucracies and not be able to deal with urgent cases. Or will we all say what grade of assisted dying we want in our lasting powers of attorney when we register them with the Public Guardian, as he is urging us all to do? What about not-very-articulate people who do not have the confidence to apply to one of Pratchett’s tribunals, or need someone to prepare their case? The Government is cutting back on legal advice and aid in many socially important legal situations: is this going to be another where you either make it on your own or not at all? Will there be class inequality in making your case for assisted dying?
Even if you support assisted dying. there’s still a lot to be thought about.
