I’m a lot different than Jerry, a former co-worker. About twelve years ago, Jerry told me that he had a collection of guns and ammunition for when times got bad. He foresaw that all decent society might collapse someday. At that point, large numbers of people would become violent, running around in every neighborhood breaking into each others’ houses and shooting each other in order to steal each others’ stuff. If this ever happened, he assumed that he would be spending considerable time sitting on his front porch defending his family with his guns.
[1]Jerry asked me what I would do if that day happened. I told him that I had already purchased a copy of a book called “Final Exit.” If society got that bad–so bad that I’d need to sit on my front porch shooting my neighbors in order to survive–I’d rather check out. Jerry, a conservative and religious man, had never heard of Final Exit. I explained that it is a book written by the founder of the group formerly known as the Hemlock Society. The book explains a relatively painless method of killing one’s self. The author was largely motivated by the fact that so many people in great and unrelenting physical pain longer wanted to live, yet they had no socially acceptable way of ending their lives.
After I explained this, Jerry was aghast. You’d kill yourself? At that time I had no children. I figured that it was my wife’s choice whether she wanted to sit on the porch and shoot the neighbors. Now that I do have children, the decision of what to do, assuming society-wide pandemonium from which there is no physical escape, would be all the more wrenching. I don’t know what I’d do. It would depend on how bad things actually got. I am utterly repulsed by the thought of shooting my neighbors.
My conversation with Jerry recurred to me as I read “Death Watch: Final Exit’s clandestine ways have put the assisted-suicide network on life support [2],” by Aimee Levitt, published 4/8/09 by the Riverfront Times, a free alternative newspaper in St. Louis. Levitt dug deeply into the facts, carefully considering the divergent perspectives on the moral/emotional/legal issues generated by the actions of a group that calls itself, “Final Exit,” a group that assist its “clients” to commit suicide.
The right to kill one’s self always seems to be a simple issue in my mind, at least at first glance: My body, my choice. But upon analysis, the topic unravels precipitously. Much like the issue of abortion, no aspect of it seems to be resolvable among those who disagree. But I keep coming back to My body, my choice. Does that sound selfish? Certainly, in the case of a person whose body is riddled by cancer, I keep thinking: Their body, their choice. Why should we involve the law enforcement system to force people to keep living lives that they, after careful consideration, don’t want to live?
Levitt spends quite a bit of her time on the legal ramifications of assisted suicide and she does a thorough job. As you can imagine, assisting another person to commit suicide can get one in all kinds of legal trouble. Those who engage in this work are careful to cover their tracks, as Levitt points out. These efforts include how to disguise the suicide:
In the 1992 edition of his best-selling Final Exit: The Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the Dying, Derek Humphry recommended prescription drugs — specifically barbiturates, preferably Nembutal — ground up in Jell-O or swallowed with a stiff drink. He also suggested that patients tie plastic bags over their heads, just in case the pills didn’t do the trick. Deadly cocktails of this sort, though, often made patients dependent on their doctors and pharmacists. Humphry decided to bypass the medical profession altogether and, in the 2002 edition of Final Exit, unveiled a new method of painless suicide: inert gases, especially helium, which is easy to obtain.
I realize that suicide is a distasteful topic for many people. I admire Levitt and the RFT for discussing these issues. You would never see such an important topic covered in-depth in the St. Louis mainstream media. It’s too much of a downer topic; it won’t sell the kinds of ads that get people out to the mall. You can laugh at the kinds of advertisements you’ll find in the back of the RFT, but that revenue is what keeps big sponsors (those who run ads in the daily newspaper) from controlling news content. That’s my opinion based on various conversations with those in a positions to know. Alternative newspapers don’t attempt to be cheerleaders for the powers that be–they are often-enough driven to publish the kinds of engaging stories that need to be discussed. You know, the kinds of stories that inspire people to become journalists in the first place. Levitt has written other first-rate articles, including this one on high school drop-outs [3].
Should we talk about suicide? Should it be taboo to discuss whether thoughtful people should be allowed access to methods for ending their lives even after they’ve carefully considered the issue? Let me end with some statistics [4]: In 2006, 32,000 people killed themselves. That’s more than 600 people killing themselves each week. The group most at risk includes elderly caucasian males [5]. Also consider that in 2006, almost 600,000 people were treated at hospital emergency rooms by trying to kill themselves. I didn’t find statistics regarding the number of terminally ill people who, having considered the issue carefully, like to kill themselves if only such assistance were available. I suspect that that number is immense.
Yes, assisted suicide is a compelling issue that needs to be discussed. Our failure to discuss this issue might needlessly be extending the deep constant pain borne by thousands of of desperately sick people who are afraid to even raise the topic.
Print this post [6]
[7]