… as she devoted her considerable intelligence and visual skill to the understanding and preservation of England’s medieval heritage, lived alone in a Devon cottage. In retirement, she was active in her town’s affairs, in the continued pursuit of her research, and in the right to die movement.
Because of what she called, in her suicide note, “the illogical, cruel British law” which forbids assisted suicide, once she became too debilitated and ill to want to go on, she had to die an undelicate and ugly death, alone, days after having been harassed by the police for having imported certain lethal drugs.
The note is a model of incision and self-control — and pathos, as she arranges “burial in my orchard” and specifies that she washed the pills down with “a miniature bottle of Cointreau.” Meticulous and courteous to the end, she notes that
If I have fouled the bath in death, please please be kind enough to wash it down: Dettol is provided.
A sad death for a proud, autonomous woman.
*******************
Mary Warnock has written:
When opponents speak of “life being precious”, they forget that life isn’t a kind of stuff, like water, which has an objective value, and which we can be urged not to squander, but to preserve. If a human being has got to the state where her life is hateful to her, no one else can insist it is valuable. It is for her to judge its value.
Warnock also points out that better palliative care, while a solution for some people, would be insupportable for others.
I do not believe that everyone would prefer palliative care. There are those for whom it would be a nightmare and who would prefer death to the drawn-out process of being kept alive and conscious, however kind, attentive and competent their carers.
This is the second right-to-die professor UD has taken note of on this blog. She tends to agree that this is one of the great human rights issues of our time, and she will approach the controversy by following stories about professors who act on their belief that reasonable people deserve the freedom to decide when they have had enough of life.
**********
UD thanks dmf.
***********
A comment on the religious argument:
The main idea here is the “sanctity of life” — the belief that life is precious and death should never be hastened. I can understand this point of view, but I think it should apply only to believers. Why should the rest of the population be held to this standard?
April 23rd, 2016 at 12:44AM
Twenty years ago I made court appearances pro bono in two of the Kevorkian trials. It was a very worthwhile experience, morally speaking. One of the insights I gained concerned the Puritan motivation of those who would deny physician assistance at the end of life. It’s a sadistic stance. What they are really saying is, I will feel better by insisting that you remain alive, even though you will suffer more. I wrote up a brief article discussing these experiences. You can read it here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14190349_Physician-assisted_suicide_Lessons_learned_from_the_Kevorkian_trials
April 23rd, 2016 at 1:16AM
Barney: I look forward to reading that article; thanks for sending. I think the more common motive is the one to which Mary Warnock alludes: Most religions tell us what the meaning and value of life is… I mean, there are divine commands about the sanctity of life and the implications of that sanctity. It’s non-negotiable. (I suppose in using the word “Puritan” you’re getting at something similar.) And I agree with Warnock that it’s odd – and can have cruel implications – that religious people insist that everyone – secular as well as religious – view life in the same way they do.
April 24th, 2016 at 3:59PM
Well the delusion that one’s death could be neat (no fouled sheets) just because it is clinically provided is part of the problem.
This attitude reminds me of Ruskin, upset at the discovery of pubic hair when all he’d known before were the cold marble parts of statues. That’s the Puritan aspect of this.
Birth, life, and death are anti-aesthetic, carry them out where you will.
April 24th, 2016 at 6:20PM
Michael: Correct.