Living and dying: choices and control

With the case of the woman known as M making its slow way through the legal system, Mike Oliver ponders the complexities of the assisted dying or right to life debate

It seems that every month or so there is yet another story in the media about a disabled person wanting to die but lacking the means to do it themselves. Consequently when other disabled people try to challenge this viewpoint they always appear to be on the defensive and trying to catch up.

We all know why this is the case; the media are only interested in stories about disabled people who are fantastic heroes or tragic victims. Unfortunately it is not newsworthy if all you want is legal and social protection to live an ordinary life.

Personally I find the whole business of death and dying very complicated and conflicting. Yes I am scared that one day I might no longer want to live but not have the means to accomplish dying for myself. But I am far more terrified that one day, long before I am ready to die, I will be denied resuscitation by misguided medics who think they are doing right by me and my family.

There are two reasons why I am merely scared about the former but terrified about the latter. Firstly we live in a society where death-making is the norm. We routinely talk about genetically engineering whole groups of people out of existence and we turn our heads away when the new born or the elderly are allowed to die. Secondly I have known more disabled people who were allowed to die when they could have been resuscitated than disabled people who wanted to die but were unable to do it themselves.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the debate about these complex issues is so polarised; you can only be in the pro-life or the assisted death camps but not both. Well I want to be in both camps. Under certain circumstances I want to be in control of my death but I also want an absolute guarantee that I will not be killed or allowed to die before I am ready.

We cannot rely on our political and legal institutions to encourage rational debate or produce complex solutions to what is both a personal and an ethical issue. Politics is based upon the two party system where you can only be in favour of something or against it. The law is not designed to pursue the truth and outcomes are usually determined by who has access to the best legal advice.

Whether the “assisted deathers” and the “pro-lifers” could ever work together on finding a way forward is debatable but the issue is too important to be left to the vagaries of vested interests, fixed positions or those who shout loudest. One thing is for sure; if it’s not newsworthy it certainly won’t be reported and it may not even be debated.