Right to Die?

The Hippcratic Oath, 12th Century
written in the form of a cross to make the
ancient text more relevant to 'modern'
discourses...but no, let us not update it any further!

Yet again the right to die is tested in the UK Courts and once again it is rejected.This time Paul Lamb and Tony Nicklinson lost their bid to end their lives with dignity after the Court of Appeal held up the High Court's original verdict that they did not have the right to ask a doctor to end their life. 

'Ask' being the operative word. People have the right to refuse to vaccinate their children with the MMR, sometimes with fatal consequences, people have the right to ask for homoeopathic or other alternative medical treatments of dubious efficacy. So why do we uphold the right of people to be stupid and deny perfectly intelligent compus mentus the right to ask for the treatment they feel most appropriate to their condition?

Let us be clear, no one is talking about forcing doctors to commit murder. The Hippocratic Oath does say that along with 'do no harm' doctors should not administer any deadly drug but also says that they shouldn't perform Lithotomy or perform abortions. The Hippocratic Oath is an ancient text with about as much relevance in the modern world as the Bible or other moral instructional text written for a completely different type of society with different moral norms and societal problems. Sure there are nice ideas to be carried over - in the former not telling people patients secrets in the latter loving thy neighbour and all that but frankly following either text to the letter is neither practical nor desirable in the modern world. This is why the Hippocratic Oath was revised in the Declaration of Geneva:

"At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

• I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;

• I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;

• I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;

• The health of my patient will be my first consideration;

• I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

• I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;

• My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;

• I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

• I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;

• I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

• I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour"

I would draw the readers attention to the following clauses: practising my profession with conscience and dignity, the health (including surely the mental health) of my patient being my first consideration, I will maintain the utmost respect for human life and will not violate human rights or liberties.

If a doctor, in good conscience *agrees with the patient* that their quality of life is so poor and their outcomes so negative that they should be allowed to die who are we to disagree? We have neither the training nor experience to judge such things - they after all have swore to maintain the utmost respect for human but also to protect their patients liberties, and not to discriminate against the disabled.

An abled person, properly motivated, can take their own life quite easily, it might be against the law, but it is still possible. A person whom is disabled might be denied that same ability. And personally, abled or disabled, if someone is going to take their own life I would rather it be done in a medical setting, with family and friends around them, able to say goodbye properly than endure the heartache of  having them reported missing only to be dredged out the Thames or Mersey or whatever a few weeks later if at all. 

Naturally this is an emotive proposal. Could ill people be harassed into ending their lives to save the health service money? Well possibly, but we are quite good at writing laws in this country to prevent abuses such as this. And as long as the legal loopholes are tightened up and enforcement of the law is sufficient I can't see any NHS Trust actively campaigning for more uptake of Euthanasia services to help balance the interest payments on that loan to the private sector for that new hospital.  Might some people convince elderly relatives to pop off rather than be a fiscal drain on the private resources, well, they could certainly try but I suspect that actually that is a tougher argument than you would expect. Try telling some elderly person they have had a good run, and isn't it time they went quietly into the night you might just get a walking stick around your jaw. And rightly so. No one will be pressured into taking their own life, or if they are we include that in our definition of murder/attempted murder and we prosecute. The days of elderly individuals climbing up the mountain so they aren't a burden on their tribe are over largely because we have surpassed the need for a subsistence economy and the old 'burden' argument doesn't really work when by 'burden' what you really mean is that "all that hard earned capital they accumulated during their life, well, I won't inherit as much if you go into a care home!" 

It is an emotive subject but so is abortion, for those who insist on making a document written during the time of the Roman Empire (and earlier) relevant in the world of mass communication, antibiotics and nuclear energy. We had the argument about abortion and we came up with compromises, we quibbled over trimesters and the number of doctors signatures or whatever but mostly, by and large, the legal and moral debate is over (well, I say that... but recent events might suggest a swing in the wrong direction) So no, no doctor should ever be forced to help someone to die nor should anyone be encouraged to take their own life. Certainly not. They have to act within the conscience of their profession; much like I won't tell a teacher how to teach, a plumber how to plumb or a chef how to cook - nor will I tell a doctor how to treat his or her patients. 

All I am asking for is that a disabled person has the right to ask a doctor to end their life, and are afforded the same opportunities as us privileged able bodied types - including the right to end their life with dignity and respect.

Anti-Mast Protests

Today's announcement by the government to tackle mobile blackspots got me wondering about the phone mast protests of the last decade. Remember them? Plucky little neighbourhood groups set up, and supported by the usual suspects on the left, to fight the good fight against those evil corporations and their phone masts! Concerned about cancer and their children (always the children, the modern equivalent of the Belgian nun circa 1914) they fought bitterly but have since vanished.

A google search of mobile mast protests shows that there are indeed still some protests rumbling away but it is a far cry from their peak in the late nineties early naughties when they were the ubiquitous form of protest despite the many good reasons for protesting around the same time.

Could it be that now that 92% of adults in the UK own and use a mobile phone that suddenly we have had a Paulian moment and seen the error in our ways? That 92% of the UK population is, almost as we speak, clutching a little black brick in their hands and shaking it violently trying to get that Youtube video to load makes the days when we were worried that phones caused cancer seem a distant memory. But there are still areas of Britain where folk have to shake their phone in order to get the text message to send, bless...presumably those areas where mobile mast protesters were successful, although I can't verify that, and areas like the Welsh Valleys and Scottish Highlands were people are not considered important enough in which to invest. So, thankfully we have this new government initiative to right this wrong, and to undo the 'good' done by busybodies standing in the way of progress.

Still, it makes me wonder. When the windfarm is undoubtedly the mobile mast of this decade...when, in the not so distant future, we sincerely wish that we had actually built more of the buggers will we have the opportunity to rectify the folly? I highly doubt that.