'Thou wast not born for death'
鈥淣ow more than ever seems it rich to die, To cease upon the midnight with no pain.鈥
Thus wrote Keats in his Ode to a Nightingale. The words came to me, unbidden, as I contemplated the Holyrood debate on assisted suicide and, in particular, the contribution from Margo Macdonald.
Margo suffers from Parkinson鈥檚 Disease. She told the chamber that .
She wanted, further, no legal sanctions upon anyone who might assist her in that final act.
In response, Nicola Sturgeon, the health secretary, said ministers had no plans to change the law which forbids assisting suicide. She noted that suicide itself was not illegal.
Margo鈥檚 contribution to Scottish politics has been immense and her views command respect.
'Half lives'
On this occasion, I am inclined to differ from her, particularly on the issue of assistance. It is only too easy, sadly, to see circumstances in which liberty to assist in hastening death could be perverted.
Further, I cannot find myself in agreement with the Rev Maxwell Craig who has said we should not prioritise the expenditure of cash on preserving what he calls the 鈥渉alf lives鈥 of the very elderly.
Personally - and nothing is more strictly personal than this - I prefer that our medical service should be fundamentally devoted to the preservation of life, not neglect or active termination.
More Keats: "Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird! No hungry generations tread thee down."
I'm 
Comments
Yep,succintly put:
'It is only too easy, sadly, to see circumstances in which liberty to assist in hastening death could be perverted'
Can't better that. The Blessed Rev Maxwell Craig is an egregious creature is he not. goodness, keep him away from me when it's my time.
There is a difference between Assisted suicide and letting someone pass away with out aggressive intervention
Brian
Surely this is an entirely subjective issue, and as such one in which each case should be examined on its particular circumstances?
After all, you, and me, are not Margo.
She is the one who has been diagnosed with a terrible, degenerative illness.
I strongly feel that a person, still in their right mind (and Margo certainly fits the bill in this regard) has every right to end their own existence at such times as it becomes unbearabe for them.
There will always be abuses, whether sympathetic legislation is, or is not, in place.
Hate to differ.
But i will.
I understand completely, the concerns around the aided suicides of people, however this can be circumvented by using Dr deaths so to speak. Health care profesionals that are paid for euthanasia. Legislation can account for all gaps you may think to pose.
A person of able mind should be able to make an appointment with a doctor of the state, to assess their medical condition, its continued deteriation, and the prognosis of the disease. The Dr and patient can discuss in real terms a point at which the patient would like to end their life (if the dr agrees) and do so with the aid of the state.
It sounds awful and morbid to have health care professionals aiding death but it happened a lot not so long ago. it was just never publicised, many newborns were condsidered " non-viable " and left to die, weak and older patients suffering pain were either given morphine overdoses or theft to starve.
We have moved on since then and the quality of life has improved for all of us, however to live in pain or under unimagineable conditions trapped within ones own body is something we cannot stand idly by.
There may be some unscrupulous individuals who would try to gain from this. However I present another social question. In light of the abuses that are coming from the channel islands childrens home, the recent media reports on the catholic childrens homes and other institutions looking after the disadvantaged young in our society, should we now throw all of these needy youngsters on the streets with no support because certain individuals would take advantage of the systems we have put in place ????
So why is it that termination of a potential life(as in an abortion) is accepted by society, but the termination of a life which is effectively completed, is not?
I can't feel happy with a situation where people are forced to live to ensure that nobody is committing murder.
The interests of vast majority of terminally ill people are central to their families鈥 concerns. I do not believe it is justified to prevent those families acting on the conscience and doing what they deem necessary because in the rarest circumstances they may have contrary interests.
When we think of the work a scientist does on an embryo we shiver. When we look at the figures for abortion we are horrified at the senseless waste of life. How can we think any different when a person wants to stop their life. This is gods work.
I cannot help but think though how frightened and hopeless she must feel if she wants an option such as this. We are talking of a vibrant woman and how galling it must be for her, the thought of being dependant on others.
Margo McDonald is a politician who I have admired as long as I have taken an interest in politics. She is honest has worked hard, given her life so far to Scotland. She has a sense of integrity that is normally to be thought of as second to none. She has brought many issues of real importance to the public and parliament. She has I have no doubt been an inspiration to many others to get up and help Scotland in politics and in Scotland generally.
In this I am shocked that she would ask someone else to contribute to her death with the associated feelings of guilt that will no doubt engender no matter how much they love her.
She may have other options she can make a living will in which she can refuse treatment I think.
My admiration knows no bounds when you consider she has continued her work in parliament during her illness and I hope we have you for a long time yet Margo.
Brian,it doesn't seem that long since our family were debating the very same issues about our parents who had got to their 80's relatively unscathed until one got too much for the other to look after and went into care.5 years passed by until the one in the home had a stroke one Saturday and was dead by the following Saturday.During that week the other parent at home basically unravelled and ended up needing hospital care.They hated it and kept pestering every visitor for a "blue pill"because they didn't want to go on without the other.They ended up turning their face to the wall basically giving up dying within 6 months of the other going.I'm sure the injections of painkillers every 4 hours in the last days helped to ease things but I did always wonder if it helped things along as well.All the family were happyish with the result eg no more pain either from the physical ageing problems or the mental anguish of being apart after 50 plus years together.
Every family will have such a story to tell which has to be recognised,respected and told.My parents at their ablest wouldn't have wanted any artifical help to die a better death.They weren't hugely religious but didn't feel that type of helping was a just role for any human being.They respected the convention that you have no say how and when you come into the world and likewise when you go.
I have the deepest respect for Margo Macdonald and don't want her to go anywhere,assisted by her own hand or anyone else's.
Reading the related article about Val Mackay who has progressive MS saddened me, because her life is miserable. I can see why she wants to end her life,- she is deeply unhappy, but there is a better way. I work for an expert healthcare charity that looks after people like her, helping them to live better, fuller, longer and happier lives. But we are woefully underfunded, and few people know about the condition so voluntary donations are hard to come by.
I only wish we could help more people to live happier lives. We're not going to cure anyone, but I see the difference we can make to people's lives. People in our care are genuinely happy despite their conditions, and really don't we all want a happier life?
I'm using a pseudonym as I don't speak as an official spokesperson for the charity, simply as someone who has seen the difference that proper care makes.
Thank you for this. I find the lurch towards acceptance of issues such as assisted suicide both scary and sad. The idea that anyone should feel that it is better for them to die than be "a burden" is abhorhant. A society should always care for those who need it. The same goes for "dignity" we should be striving so no one feels that they are not "dignified" in their illness, not killing them because of it. People deserve dignity and respect in life, not a feeling that in living they are burdening others. If we allow this, the concequences of people becomming pressurised into ending their life to relieve others of all responsibility are terrifying.
I am a Scot living in Cape Town. I have just watched Margo online.
This is by far one of the most moving speeches i have ever heard and to deny this woman what she desires would be a travesty!!
This is yet another evidence that Christian values are being lost sight of in Scotland. The fundamental issue behind human dignity is that we have an immortal soul as well as a body, which is capable of knowing and having fellowship with God. Quality of life therefore can transcend the life of the body. Our medical ethics are based on Christian principles - long may this continue.
Well said Brian.
If doctors want to get into the business of ending life then let them become vets.
There's a big difference between letting people die pain free and with dignity (which I think is Margo's big worry), and rushing them towards the light.
No 5 by Dr Peter Kirkbride hit the nail on the head.
I am right behind Margo on this as I would like to die with dignity rather than be spoon fed and all the other requirements to maintain a clean environment. I wish her all the best in her future health and that we Scots will aid her to fulfill her wishes. Honest politics will be the loser when she is not able to carry on as she has done in the past. We are failing as a nation if this, at the very least is not debated.
My eyes filled with tears watching Margo. I had no idea she was affected by Parkinsons.
I hope she has a long and happy life and has no need for the help she was talking about in Parliament.
The right to be able to take one's own life is the ultimate human right. To be denied this right is an unbearable thought. We must have this debate.
I certainly hope that I don't have to carry on living if I am bed ridden and dying in order to keep some christian notion of keeping people alive. Why can't I have some means of ending it, with dignity, when I so feel fit?
We afford animals more dignity in alleviating their pain and suffering why not humans?
Brian, you are normally scrupulously fair, but if you are going to quote Maxwell Craig as though he were the sole representative of the medical profession, you do an injustice both to them and to the case for assisted suicide. I personally favour the case put forward by Margo and Jeremy Purvis. I defend your right to disagree, but please, when discussing the issue on a public forum, don't forget your journalistic responsibility to treat both sides fairly. Maxwell Craig's comments are not representative of my views or of the vast majority of those who support assisted suicide, and I feel it is important to put that on record.
I thought this column was for you to comment on the actions and words of others, rather than expressing your own view.
The comment earlier about abortion being OK, but a requested end to a completed life is not shows how screwed up our morals can be.
No 5 by Dr Peter Kirkbride hit the nail on the head.
I am right behind Margo on this as I would like to die with dignity rather than be spoon fed and all the other requirements to maintain a clean environment. I wish her all the best in her future health and that we Scots will aid her to fulfill her wishes. Honest politics will be the loser when she is not able to carry on as she has done in the past. We are failing as a nation if this, at the very least is not debated.
First of all, as a fellow Scot and SNP supporter, I would just like to say love to Margo and wish her all the very best.
Also, religion should not be any part of this debate. I am not religious and religious people have no right to dictate to me their opinions. I do not tell them what to think or do. It is always the same... Sunday drinking or gambling etc.
A vet can put an animal out of it's mysery (and the animal doesn't even have a say in the matter), therefore a doctor should be able to carry out the wishes of a person based on the specific evidence of that case, such as nature of illness, sanity of the person etc.
My wish would be for as painless and comfortable as passing as possible. No-one has the right to deny me that should it ever materialise.
End of!!!
I had to have my dog euthanised two years ago. I did so out of love to prevent her further suffering. I remember thinking then "When my time comes I wish somebody could do the same for me".
It is odd that the law compels one to euthanise an animal to end its suffering but there is no alternative for a human being.
Each victim of suicide gives his/her act a personal stamp which expresses their temperament, the special conditions in which he/she is involved, and which, consequently, cannot be explained by the social and general causes of the phenomenon.
Im sorry but i disagree with margo. If your quality of life deteriorates to such an extent due to illness or infirmity then its is the quality that needs to be changed not the life. If politiicans change quanitity of life to allow people to be killed even in a humane way then we then place a value on quantity. We have an aged population majority and to not see caring for them as an opportunity to improve quality of life for all those who have degenerative illness is to fail as a society. To decide that there is a grey area in value of life is to put a price on life. Life itself is priceless not worth-less.
Isn't it sad reflection for our time that some people want to bring religion ito this, as far as I'm led to believe the Scottish Parliament is a secular institution and as such should be free from the "Fairy Tale" Religous beliefs that some elected MSPs' have. If the people who believe in a all seeing, "Compasionate" supreme being have their way then people all across Scotland like Margo will effectively be disenfranchised from their lives when the struggle of living with a terminal diagnosis is near it's conclusion.
The same can be seen in Westminster presently with the debate on stem cell research. This potentially major step forward in medical science is being hampered by those in the population who capitulate to the antiquated and irrelevant superstitons of the major religions.
It's time people put the quality of their lives first and for people to have a say on when they would like it to end with the help of their families.
All I can say is I hope that none of these "Compasionate" religious people ever have the need to access any medical care or be diagnosed with a terminal illness in the future as this could weight heavily on their concious.
This is a personal comment, because it is a very personal matter. My father strongly believed in the right of a person to choose when to end their own life. He died a wretched and undignified death in hospital.
My mother, strongly Christian, believed that suicide was a sin. She died a wretched, miserable and wholly undignified death in hospital.
I want to die in my own home, with my friends around me. If that means living ten years shorter than I otherwise might, so be it. This Earth is not a penal colony; we are not sentenced to life. We have a right to say 'this game's no fun any more' and go and take an early bath.
The issue of assisted suicide, though, is more complex, for just the reason you suggest; particularly as with the speculative bubble in house prices, elderly people are often worth a lot of money, and the vultures in any family gather around the prospective corpse.
Assisted suicide has been going on in medicine for millenia, even Dr Cameron of Tannoch Brae was known to give the dying a wee help to meet their maker. It's called giving compassion and dignity to the dying.
On the basis of the arguments against Margo's request: a Military Triage Officer would be unable to perform their duties as one decision we had to make was who lives and who doesn't based on the availability of resources for further treatment. Those with potentially fatal wounds would be put to the side, on a drip, morphine and metroniadzole until those with higher probabilities of survival had been treated down line.
That is similar to the point the Reverend and Margo are making, the NHS has limited resources and no pretence from any Government of any colour can change this. Bevin brought the hospital consultants on side in 1947 by pointing out that the NHS would never have the funds needed to provide universal care so their private practice was safe.
So do we spend 拢60K on cardiac operations for a 76 year old who does not want to carry on and stated a wish to be left to die or use the limited funds for someone who wants life and will make full use of the extra 5 to 10 years they have been given?
Just because we can does not mean we should and in this I am in full agreement with the Reverend and Margo.
Unfortunately, Mr Taylor's very laudable principle all too often itself becomes perverted:-
....medical service should be fundamentally devoted to the preservation of life,at whatever cost.......
And the 'cost' is not simply financial.
Dr Peter Kirkbride wrote:
Potential lives are terminated every time a woman menstruates (and more frequently for men). Do you wish every girl child to be forcibly impregnated immediately on puberty, and reimpregnated immediately after each birth until her menopause, to prevent this waste of potential life?
The development of a new life is a process, with many stages. There's nothing magic about the moment when the gametes meet. When a child is born, then you have a life.
This issue is about humanity and dignity. It is inhumane to force a woman to carry a child she does not want; and it is inhumane to force someone to live on in misery and pain when they choose to die.
I'd put it stronger than that. It is immoral, wicked, to do so.
Brian, I must disagree with your point:
"I prefer that our medical service should be fundamentally devoted to the preservation of life, not neglect or active termination."
Our medical service must be dedicated to the care and well-being of its patients and this does not always entail the preservation of their life.
As a society I think we need to consider our attitudes to death and the process of dying. To preserve life at all costs can be a brutal and cruel thing to do. Ironically, we are often more humane to animals by putting them 'to sleep' and yet condone passive euthanasia by turning off life support systems and letting people starve to death rather than 'active termination'. I cannot see how this can be morally justified.
I agree that there are complex issues around people feeling a burden or the potential maleficence of professionals or carers. However, this should not be outwith our ken to legislate for.
Death is the one inevitability in life and we should allow people to approach it with dignity and without pain. In many cases, I feel that refusing euthanasia is a selfish act by the happy and healthy, more concerned by their own guilt than the suffering of others.
Couldn't agree more with no 29.
Perfectly summed up, expertly phrased by Simon Brooke.
That said, I am leary of assisted suicide.
It's one thing for a patient with a terminal disease to refuse treatment in order to hasten themselves on their merry way, so to speak, and another thing entirely to euthanise someone incapable of stopping you, or even making a comment based on previous statements. People can change their minds; also, it's not the person involved doing the deed, it's a doctor, who (probably not nowadays) has taken an oath to "do no harm". OK, so we could sit and debate the term "harm" till we're all blue in the face but I am still leary of it.
I say provide people with the means to off themselves, but do not assist them in anyway; merely allow people to do it. If they're incapable of carrying out such an act then doctors must act as best they can to preserve life, and "do no harm".
On another note entirely, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of the religious orders sticking their oars in on debates like this.
Churches, mosques etc. are entitles to their opinion as are we all.
I dislike them throwing their weight around telling MP's/MSP's of their faith to vote in a certain way. I don't think my religious faith should have an input in political decisions, why should anyone elses. The place to influenece this sort of debate is the 4 boxes (Soap-box, ballot-box, jury-box, and in failure of the above, ammo-box). I don't see pulpit on that list (ok, so it is a sort of soap-box but still).
To attempt to inflict the supposed will of your "god" on me is wrong. I won't inflict the perceived will of my Gods on you, and I'd appreciate it if you'd do likewise.
With the debate over cross-species zygote studies with the catholic church getting all militant and now this, I fear this country could degenerate into a situation as in America, where militant religious groups hold far more sway than they should in a secular democracy.
Assisted dying has always existed, and will always exist. As a Christian I live by the "do as you would be done by". This means that I extend my wish to help others have their wishes met, but I would like to think they would do the same for me. Think of the "Good Samaritan" - how many others passed by on the other side. To support assisted dying does not mean to wish personally to make use of this. In Oregon the rate dropped significantly once people knew it was available. Just to know one could ask for this help might relieve people's minds and make it less likely they would actually feel the need to carry it through.
Assisted suicide is an issue on which perfectly reasonable people can hold different opinions with equal sincerity which is why there will never be an answer acceptable to all.
Personally I'm with Margo Macdonald and I wish her success in her dignified attempt to have a proper debate.
Eddie's post above is bang on the nail. I recently watched a much loved uncle take 18 months to die - cancer-ridden, deaf, blind, incontinent. Latterly he was being kept alive by the medical profession simply because they could do so and I hope one result of Margo's actions will be the end of this kind of unnecessary and, frankly, baleful medical intervention in a natural process.
No. 29. That is the best reply i've read to that particular (and difficult) question. I agree with you 100%.
To Mary, reply 12.
Actually, our medical ethics are based not on Christian values, but Hippocratic theory.
Hippocrates' greatest legacy was separating the discipline of medicine from religion, believing and arguing that disease was not a punishment inflicted by the gods but rather the product of environmental factors, diet and living habits.
You have to accept that not everyone has the same belief structure as you, and as such, should not be compelled to live and die according to your moral beliefs.
This debate should be careful of straying into Religious moralising as this is only representative of a section of society. The laws govern all, therefore, laws should be representative of all.
Hippocrates separated religion from medicine in 400BC, if we continue this today, then perhaps we will reach a solution that suits everyone based on tangible arguments and rigorous debate.
May I be allowed to point out (as I often wonder at the confusion that exists on this subject) that the reason Scotland did not allow suicide, euthanasia, abortion etc. for so many generations, was because of fear of offending the God of the Bible. People were taught that if they did such (evil) things that they would most certainly have to account for it at the day of judgement.
Seeing as we now live in more 'enlightened' times and have not bothered to aquaint ourselves with the Bible like as our forefathers did, we now feel perfectly free to decide what is good and what is evil as and of ourselves. Each of us doing what we see as being right in our own eyes.
Scotland has changed, for the first time (probably) since Columba we are no longer Christian.
Has God changed?