Your Letters – July 2011

Assisted suicide on TV: prurient, risky and irresponsible

Did anyone at the BBC ask themselves what they were doing, screening a tele­vision programme about assisted suicide (Choosing to Die, BBC2, 13 June 2011), presided over by the author and celebrity Terry Pratchett (pictured, right)?

In Bridgend in South Wales, 25 young people took their lives in a short period (2007-2009), all but one by hanging. The story got global coverage. No link was established between the deaths but many of the people who died were in contact with each other through networking sites, even living on the same street.

“Copycat” killings, such as the one at Columbine High School in the USA, are a known syndrome. When one person breaks a taboo, it seems to lower the threshold for others to do the same. The BBC’s programme could have this effect. If it does, and even one person is encouraged to take his or her lives in an untimely fashion, will the BBC feel responsible? Will Charlotte Moore, who com­missioned the programme, wring her hands and say “We shouldn’t have done this?”

There is a constant cry about “dying with dignity” from those who wish to legalise euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in this country, but where is the dignity in filming and showing the final moments of someone's life and then parading it for the TV audience? Audiences are prurient. Can the BBC be sure that its motives are entirely honourable?

I refused to watch the beheading of poor Kenneth Bigley, when it was released onto the internet; I think it abhorrent that others did. Public executions are still carried out in other countries but what do we make of them? We no longer have capital punishment in this country, although many members of the public would apparently restore it for some crimes.

The same people probably think that assisted suicide and euthanasia should be lawful, but that doesn’t make it right. Socrates knew that virtue couldn’t be determined democratically: a morally repugnant act doesn’t become less repugnant because the majority supports it.

Nan Maitland, who suffered from arthritis but wasn’t terminal, took herself to a Swiss clinic a couple of months ago for an early death. My mother, also an arthritis sufferer, had a stroke at Christmas. What did she want? To get home as soon as possible, get back into her old way of life as soon as she could, and look forward to all of us “kids” coming to visit her, doing crosswords, watching her favourite TV programmes, and enjoying the neigh­bours popping in. In truth she was a little relieved when all the fuss died down after her illness, and the visiting returned to normal levels. But it never crossed her mind that she should stop living.

What’s the difference between them? Well, clearly my mother enjoys her life, even with its struggles. I feel sorry that Nan Maitland couldn’t have enjoyed hers: I believe she had fewer problems with her mobility than my mother does now.

So why did the BBC decide to show an assisted suicide on TV? However journalistically justifiable the film might be to some, heart-rending horror stories are dangerous. In the late 1970s, a number of people in England and Wales committed suicide by self-immolation, the media picked up on this, and within a year the death toll had reached 82, many of whom were women in their 30s. Publicity made self-immolation contagious. The BBC should have recognised this and acted more responsibly.
Kevin Fitzpatrick, Not Dead Yet UK


Will DLA changes curb our freedoms?

The changes being forecast for DLA (Disability Living Allowance) are really scary.

I’m 70 years old this year and have severe osteo-arthritis, which affects many of my major joints. On top of that, I have a chronic spinal condition which after two major operations has left me with nerve damage below the waist. I walk with the aid of two sticks, and even then with difficulty.

My godsend is my Motability car. This gives me the freedom to go where I want in safety and comfort.

What worries me is that my car might be taken away from me when I come up for a medical. Will I end up wasting away in a chair, stuck in front of a TV or radio, dependent on others to get my food in for me?

MPs seem not to have considered the consequences of the proposed new legislation on those who depend on benefits like mine to get out and about. Most disabled people aren’t so deficient that they need to be confined to their homes.

Those who make these arbitrary decisions about how we live our lives must grant us the same freedoms that they have. If we’re able to live independ­ently, they should help to protect that privilege. We’re all a long time dead.
Les Harrison, by email


Only CCTV can protect the vulnerable in care

I was disturbed by the recent BBC Panorama programme, exposing systematic abuse of vulnerable adults at the Winterbourne View Care Home in Bristol.

I was glad to hear that unannounced visits are being ordered to check care facilities, but that’s not enough, as abuse usually occurs behind closed doors.

What’s needed is for all rooms in all care homes be fitted with tamper-proof closed-circuit television viewable by independent government-appointed inspectors.

I realise that the ethical implications of this would be complicated, but the need justifies the means if such monitoring gave vulnerable people better protection from abusers, as I believe it would. We can’t go on ignoring the vulnerable. Much more has to be done to protect them.
Alice Elliott, by email