Assisted Suicide Shown on TV

[Oresai]

source, Yahoo News online.

Suicide film to be shown on TV
2 hours 26 mins ago


Video: First assisted suicide to be shown on TV
The film shows Craig Ewert drinking a mixture of sedatives at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland and turning off his own ventilator using his teeth.

The 59-year-old American suffered from motor neurone disease and chose to die rather than endure what he described as 'torture'.

The footage forms part of a documentary filmed by Oscar-winning director John Zaritsky called Right to Die?

The broadcast comes a day after the parents of paralysed rugby player Daniel James were told they would face no action over his assisted suicide at Dignitas at the age of 23.

Worcestershire Coroner Geraint Williams later recorded a verdict of suicide at an inquest into Mr James' death.

The film, which is on Sky Real Lives at 9pm, shows Mr Ewert bleakly outlining his options as "death, or suffering and death".

Before his suicide, Mr Ewert said: "I'd like to continue. The thing is that I really can't.

"I can't take that risk, that's choosing to be tortured rather than end this journey and start the next one.

"If I go through with it, I die as I must at some point.

"If I don't go through with it, my choice is to suffer, for my family to suffer and then die.

"The fact that I know the date I'm going to die simply makes definite what was previously indefinite.

"When you are completely paralysed, can't talk, can't walk, can't move your eyes, how do you let someone know that you are suffering?"

In a moving letter to his two adult children, who appear in the programme, he wrote: "This is a journey I must make.

"At the same time I hope this is not the cause of major distress to my dear sweet wife, who will have the greatest loss, as we have been together for 37 years in the greatest intimacy."

Sky defended the decision to broadcast Mr Ewert's suicide.

Barbara Gibbon, Head of Sky Real Lives, said: "This is an issue that more and more people are confronting and this documentary is an informative, articulate and educated insight into the decisions some people have to make.

"I think it's important that TV broadcasters, and particularly Sky Real Lives, can stimulate debate about this issue through powerful, individual and engaging stories and give this subject a wider airing."

[Oresai]

The following is a comment I put on a blog I have elsewhere. Assisted suicide and euthanasia is a topic close to my heart. I`ve lost loved ones and watched them suffer unnecessarily over the years and find it appalling that we are denied, in Britain, what we can give to our pets should they be terminally ill...compassion.

Tonight on tv, there`s to be a programme about assisted suicide. A wife wants the world to see her husband die, in a clinic in Switzerland, a painfree and dignified death, something they both felt he would be denied in this country, as he suffered from Motor Neurone disease.

I have never done this before, but I emailed Sky news in their `comments` section and agreed with the concept of assisted suicide.

It means a great deal to me, if, at some point in the future I`m diagnosed with an incurable disease which may affect my quality of life, that I be allowed the right to choose to die with dignity and ease. We allow such for our beloved pets when their times come. Why is it denied to humans in the UK?

I have seen loved ones and friends die of varying illnesses, both suddenly and protracted. Of those who took time to die, I have no doubt had the option of assisted suicide been available, they would have taken it, both to avoid the stress and absolute grief of their loved ones, and any pain resulting from the last throes of the illness. Why is that wrong, in the UK?

Yes, I am sure there are fears it may be open to abuse and manipulation attempts by unscrupulous people, but the clinic mentioned in the programme takes care of that by making the terminally ill patient prove that they are doing this of their own free will, free from manipulation by any other person, and the patient must also take that final drink of drugs that will send them gently to sleep, into coma, then death, by themselves, and this is filmed as proof of that.

Religious objections? Surely it should have no say in such a matter, as if the terminally ill patient was so sure of their religion, they wouldn`t be going down this final, poignant, route. This decision, if it ever comes to the UK, for assisted suicide to be made legal, should be entirely free from religious input. It should be a choice available to each individual. As I said in my mail to the news station, the government currently controls our every breath, more or less, from cradle to grave. Surely it`s time we were allowed the dignity and control of choosing, if it ever comes to it, the means of our death? Or does someone else actually `own` our bodies, and our souls? If not us, then who has the right to control such a choice?

I`m sure the programme will spark a lengthy, emotionally intense debate. Let`s hope common sense rules, for a change, and that religious superstitious beliefs do not hold such a debate by the throat. I have seen, in the past, a terminally ill woman cry and beg for relief that was not forthcoming because for the hospice to give it to her, would result in her death. So she did suffer. I know what having the choice of assisted suicide would mean to so many people facing lingering or painful deaths today.

Let`s hope, when my time comes, such a choice is set in place and that I can face my death, in whatever manner it approaches, without fear.

[Goswinus]

If Life is God/the Gods' gift to Man, and if depreciating and returning a gift, which one might consider a touch by the heart, is not just ruddy and impolite, a sign of ingratitude, but "Sin" - best described as an inviolation of a natural order - than wouldn't follow that if God/the Gods gifts a person with something broken and tainted, or takes it away, this Supreme Being faults itself with a sinful act...at least, on a human level, it would be called downright looting and robbery...?

And furthermore, wouldn't laying off one's life in serenity and beauty, in face of the horror of excruciating pain and mental harrowing, be more an act of honouring that gift of Life than waiting till the Sickness finishes off its victim with plain disregard of a person's dignity?..

[Loki]

This is all over the newspapers today in the UK. Rather controversial. Not sure yet whether I want to watch that tonight.

[Alison]

I don't want to watch it. To me, it's sensationalism in the worst possible taste.

I do agree with the idea that we should be allowed to "put ourselves down" if we are in incredible pain with no hope of a cure. It's simply inhumane to expect people to live through such agony and to take away their personal choice.

I'd just top myself anyway if it got too bad.

[Absinthe]

Ditto, Alison...

While I fully support people's decisions to end their lives if they're terminally ill, it is a morbid and grotesque thing to sell on TV.

Why would anyone want to watch such a private, sacred moment?

It shows once more that we're a blood thirsty society, and our modern media are no better than Roman arenas

[Alison]

Absolutely a bloodthirsty society, but humans have always been bloodthirsty, so it's no surprise to me.

I can picture the kettles going on 5 minutes before the viewing and people sitting on the edge of their chairs watching the death of a person. Gross out stuff.
Hell, they just need to watch the news every day to get what it means to die.

[Oresai]

I won`t be watching it either, and only found out about it watching Sky news this morning (where they showed clips from it )
I`ve seen folks I cared for die in `real` life, and Absinthe is right...it`s too sacred a thing to gawp at.

[Alison]

Yeah. When they switch those machines off because your loved one has flat-lined is not something easy to see, nevermind having half the world watching the indignity of it.

[Oresai]

Related post, source, Scotsman online.


Published Date: 31 December 2008
By ROSS LYDALL
GORDON Brown yesterday ruled out new laws that would allow terminally ill people to receive help to die.



The Prime Minister made clear his total opposition to relaxing the ban on assisting a person to commit suicide, suggesting such a change could force vulnerable people to end their lives early if they feared they would become a burden.

A series of high-profile cases have recently increased calls for assisted dying to be made legal in the UK.

Each year, about 100 Britons travel to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal.

In a radio interview, Mr Brown was asked by the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, for his views on the shortening of life.

He said: "Well, I'm totally against laws on that. I think this debate about assisted suicide, it's not really for us to create any legislation that would put pressure on people to feel that they had to offer themselves because they were causing trouble to a relative. So I think we have got to make it absolutely clear that the importance of human life is recognised."

The 1961 Suicide Act makes aiding and abetting suicide punishable by up to 14 years in prison in England and Wales. In Scotland, people providing assistance could be prosecuted under common law rules on culpable homicide.

In England, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided earlier this month not to charge the parents of Daniel James, who accompanied their 23-year-old tetraplegic son to the Dignitas clinic in Zurich to allow him to die.

Margo MacDonald, the independent MSP, is aiming to bring a bill before the Scottish Parliament that would make assisted suicide legal north of the Border.

Ms MacDonald, who has Parkinson's disease, needs the support of 17 fellow MSPs for her bill to be debated.

She told The Scotsman that she feared Mr Brown may have been "confused" by the difference between euthanasia and proposals for assisted dying.

"I think the inference from the use of the word euthanasia is that a person other than the patient takes the decision when life should end," she said.

"That is certainly not the intention of my proposal. My proposal is that the patient should always take the initiative in deciding whether or not they want to continue; to life ending naturally or they truncate the last part of their life.

"They may need assistance in this, and I'm suggesting it would be physician-assisted and that it wouldn't be with the assistance of a friend or relative."

She said that Prime Minister was entitled to his view but added: "If he is going to give his opinion so freely, then I think he should be aware that his status carries a lot of influence in terms of public policy that can result. In Scotland, to their credit, the party leaders have all said this will be a question of conscience and individual decision on the part of MSPs."
[/QUOTE]