Suicide makes losers of us all

 Legalizing assisted suicide – though often termed assisted dying – is unnecessary and disrespectful. In countries where this has become an issue, the medical staff with palliative care expertise generally do not support such measures. It’s a hot topic in Britain at present, and debate was fuelled by Amour, as it was in 2004 by the sports drama Million Dollar Baby. The French take on the difficulties of old age went beyond the adage, “Old age is not for sissies”, but took us to where the character played by Emmanuelle Riva had reached the point where death was the natural next step for her life. But Jean-Louis Trintignant’s character strangely did not seek medical help to allow his wife to die with respect. That help could have been simply to arrange intravenous nourishment and hydration to allow a peaceful departure from this life in the old woman’s own time. That it was time to stop offering solid food was obvious. Therefore the film had a false climax, one that was unconvincing to anyone who had paid the slightest attention to what medical services now routinely provide those near death whether at home or in a hospice environment.
Amour portrayed a case of what should have been “care of the dying”, not “assisted dying”. The first term upholds the dignity of the person and the rhythm of life – Riva’s old woman wanted death to come; it was time to die. Yes, we (the reasonable ordinary serious-minded person) can see that this is the right decision given the woman’s time of life and health situation. We also know that a person’s life does not have to be extended at all costs or we would not honour those who give their life for a justifiable cause, such as to save another person. However, it is acknowledged that sometimes the care given to the dying does have a double effect of bringing death sooner as a result of trying to remove pain.  This is not splitting hairs; this is recognising the fact that we have in our care a human being and that this person’s dignity must be safeguarded. We must be sensitive to the delicate nature of the precious moments. Such a storyline would have made an enthralling film. 
Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby was more convincing because his character knew it was morally wrong to kill Swank’s “Baby”. This “assisted suicide” was an act of murder plain and simple. The loving father character should have been guided more by his moral principles, which he allowed his emotion to override. But this scenario of a young person severely handicapped but nowhere near death, offered another option, one that meant a decision of a more uplifting kind for “Baby”. The decision could have been one that highlights where so much current moral thinking leads – to what is easy, to what avoids inconvenience, to what, in fact, removes the challenge – even adventure – of embarking on a journey that would be painful for sure, but may allow a magnificent outcome, an outcome that would be a personal achievement of calm acceptance, and, not least, and a heightened regard for the welfare of others, because of the one performing at the supreme level that is possible for a human.

Eastwood’s character’s role should likewise have focused on the goals his “baby” could achieve in her life despite the constricting circumstances. A morally sound person would have an understanding of the value of suffering – in the face of those who reject the reality that suffering can be ennobling – from both their own life experience and from the testimony of survivors of instances of hell on earth such as Hitler’s death camps.  He would have given encouragement to a sense of adventure, helping the victim make courage the stairway to a  greatness of spirit and to an integrity higher than most of us can attain, we who are physically whole but as morally weak as a mouse. The companion in this case could share the suffering of the bedridden, but also bring the world to the bedside, the world of much horror and mayhem, as well as of the many who struggle to raise themselves from hopelessness.
Many people do not see how weak and shallow they have decided to be when they decide to kill themselves as they grow old or are overtaken by illness. This is where their upright friends and family need to step in with forceful counsel. The unhappy thing is that those people say something of this kind: “I’ve always been an active person – I simply couldn’t bear being feeble”. Why do they limit themselves in such an extreme way? Where is their sense of adventure? Why don’t they see that the courage they think they have is merely the display of common or garden fear – fear of pain, or fear of the unknown where before they considered themselves in control? Even when dementia, for example, has seemingly stripped the person of dignity, that, too, is part of the journey of that person in life. Also, doctors acknowledge that we must reserve our judgment on when that person has lost all awareness of self, let alone when that person has reached the point of death.    
Therefore, the argument for assisted dying/suicide as we see surrounding much of the legislation in Europe and envisaged for England and Wales, is not an step forward in the development of our awareness of human dignity. Rather it reflects a general decline in moral strength, especially because but it undermines respect for the human person. It also undermines the ability of an aware but ailing person to find support in making the effort to shape their life story in a personal way. The common good would be better served by the firm espousal of hope for one’s life ahead, and trust in the goodness of carers, than by caving in to the dismay of those around them, who (correctly) see inconvenience and financial difficulty for themselves. But that positive view requires the ability to convey a more complex reality than these two films achieved.
[For an insight into the ethical argument advanced here go to this resource]