Owning your life means being able to end it, too.

Or: “Die? Pah! That’s the last thing I intend to do.”

Sometimes, wanting to die is perfectly rational. Although suicidal people are often thought of as mentally ill and in need of care for their own sake (which sometimes is perfectly true), there are other times when perfectly sane people simply make the value judgement that living isn’t worth it any longer. Like this guy.

I once heard on the TV (I think it was that Big Questions thing on a Sunday) a woman arguing against legal support for people like him on the grounds that people who wanted to end their lives were mentally unsound. Her support for the fact that they were mentally unsound was that they wanted to end their lives. Apart from the obvious circular logic here, it’s quite clearly nonsense.  In this case, for instance, the poor soul has Locked in syndrom, which is a:

• Condition in which patient is mute and totally paralysed, except for eye movements, but remains conscious.
• Usually results from massive haemorrhage or other damage, affecting upper part of brain stem, which destroys almost all motor function, but leaves the higher mental functions intact

A person in Tony’s condition is quite clearly not mentally unsound. He’s merely suffering greatly. In fact, he doesn’t really have much of a life at all. Given that it’s impossible to really comprehend his situation, especially the part that means there’s no cure or chance of reversing his state, I really don’t think there’s anyone out there who can possibly judge whether or not he should or should not go on living, apart from himself. There’s simply no way any other person can make such a judgement for a sane, free thinking person.

Tony’s no doubt in a good position if he would like to end his life or keep on killing, but the law, as it often does, is standing in the way of his freedom. Although English law does accept the idea that a person may legally take his own life (s1), the same piece of statute makes it unlawful to assist a suicide (s2).Which all makes sense until you come across a person like Tony who lacks the ability to end his own life.

Now, wouldn’t you all agree that it makes sense that if a person has a right to do something, then it follows they have a right to do it alongside, or with the aid of, other, voluntary parties? Hell, that is, after all, the basis of all trade and social interaction. It pretty obviously follows that if you can’t kill yourself, but you want to, then you should have the damn right to get some help from a voluntary party to help you off yourself.

So why, oh, Christ, why does The State believe that it- a totally disinterested body with absolutely no experience in any particular individual’s situation- get the idea that it has a better idea of how to handle such a decision than that very individual? Answer: It doesn’t. It can only resort to emotional arguments, based on religion, or maybe some counter intuitive claim to utilitarianism, or indeed, as it often does, in claiming to defend one’s right to life.

But the right to one’s life necessarily includes the right to end it, just as the right to free speech includes the right to shut up (which some people could really do with invoking more often). Politicos may sit in their offices under the impression they’re empathic, caring, and all pro-life, but forcing those who, rationally, do not wish to live is actually a breach of their right to own their own lives. Self-ownership means just that. And who would deny you have a right to destroy one’s property if one wishes to?

From a legal point of view, despite recent calls to clarify the law, it’s still all a bit muddy. At the moment, although aiding and abetting another person’s suicide is still illegal, there are guidelines that need to be considered before prosecution goes ahead. For obvious reasons, they focus on the terminally ill, and those unable to kill themselves (after all, a non disabled person determined to end it would do it himself), but as the law is still not entirely crystal clear in this field (if it can ever be), it still means that the relatives of those in severe situations like Tony, the people who are most likely to pull the plug, metaphorically or literally, need to live not only under the massive pain of their loved one’s situation, but also about their own legal situation too. When you could spend years, or even your life in prison for what could be the most caring thing you will ever do, you’re not going to be at the top of your game.

At this point, I wanted to make a brief point about jury nullification in such cases, (Look up Kay Gilderdale, although as her daughter was not in a state to personally make any death wish known, it’s a bit different), although I got a bit distracted with the concept and now plan to do a bigger blogpost on the concept in general, but in cases of voluntary assisted suicide, I honestly can’t see why a perverse verdict in favour of a defendant could possibly be seen as unjust.

TL;DR version: People have a right to their own lives, and sometimes, for whatever reason, people have good reason to want it to end sooner than it otherwise would, and neither the law nor bureaucrats have either right or reason to interfere. It is, after all, the most important and personal of all personal decisions.

Be Sociable, Share!

•