Ian O’Doherty: When you see someone in intolerable pain, it is monstrous to prolong their suffering
IN WHAT will probably become known as the Year of the Covid, 2020 has focused our minds on mortality. It hasn’t been pleasant. It hasn’t been easy. Many of us are now more conscious of our own eventual departure than we might have been in those simpler days before the pandemic. But while the shocking statistics of the past six months have concentrated many people’s minds on life and death, thousands more have been preparing for their approaching demise since long before this vicious virus turned the world upside down.
On Thursday, a hugely important bill will be presented to the Dáil for a debate, before a vote scheduled for Wednesday next week. The Dying with Dignity Bill was first presented in 2015 by John Halligan, and now People Before Profit’s Gino Kenny has reintroduced the legislation. Most of us will be happy to see the matter discussed in the Dáil.
If passed, Dying with Dignity 2020 would introduce the option of euthanasia for people with terminal illnesses.
According to its supporters, such an option merely reduces patients’ fears that a loved one or sympathetic doctor could be prosecuted for helping them end their suffering.
To its many critics, however, such a law would simply be the ‘slippery slope’ that would ultimately lead to the elderly being pressurised into ending their lives.
As I wrote in this column last year, euthanasia is the last great cultural battleground. We have to brace ourselves for what will be a fractious debate, both inside the Dáil and within wider society.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion – I voted to repeal the Eighth, but I understand why others chose not to – there was a recognition that we couldn’t continue to simply outsource our problems to clinics in Britain.
In many ways, that was analogous to the euthanasia debate. Rather than abortions in England, we outsourced terminally-ill citizens to places such as Dignitas in Switzerland.
This state has behaved in an abominable fashion towards those looking for a way to end their suffering. Think of Gail O’Rorke, the Dublin woman who tried to help a friend with multiple sclerosis (MS) travel to Switzerland and ended up being prosecuted (and mercifully found not guilty).
Think of the indefatigable Tom Curran, who has continued to campaign for the right to die ever since his partner, Marie Fleming, another MS sufferer, was so disgracefully hounded by a state opposed to her efforts to die in the least painful fashion.
As the law stands, not only is it illegal to help someone to die in this jurisdiction; it is also a crime to assist someone in their journey to an establishment such as Dignitas. This is an appalling intrusion into the arena of bodily autonomy and it is, above all else, unforgivably cruel.
As the campaigner and euthanasia advocate Vicky Phelan asked recently about the possibility of going to Dignitas: “If you tell family members and you bring them with you, are they going to be prosecuted when they come home?”
Any end-of-life scenario is distressing for all concerned, but surely all but the most intransigent soul can see that forcing extra worries on someone who is about to die is simply cruel. It serves no purpose, benefits nobody and only makes an already traumatic experience even worse.
That’s not to say that there aren’t certain qualms about euthanasia.
I’m not the only supporter of assisted dying who was deeply uncomfortable at the story of the Belgian twins Marc and Eddy Verbessem, who decided to be euthanised together.
Born deaf, the 45-year-old brothers then began to lose their sight and chose to die together. The fact that their family was strongly opposed to the decision raised numerous uncomfortable questions about the limits of how far euthanasia should go.
But this bill is a long way from that moral and ethical quagmire. Clear safeguards are laid out. The patient must be suffering from a terminal illness. They must be of sound mind and completely aware of what they are doing. They would not be eligible if they suffered from mental illness, physical disability or advanced age.
Contrary to some of the more hysterical scare stories, this would not open the door to topping Granny when she outlives her usefulness. The fact that this argument is so often employed by religious activists seems to indicate that they have a rather low estimation of other people.
Modern medicine has advanced to the point where we can keep people alive for far longer than they should be, while also depriving them of any quality of life.
As someone who has spent far more time in hospices with dying family members than I ever wanted, I can certainly attest to the truly amazing palliative care on offer. The staff ’s kindness and consideration were awe-inspiring, and not a day goes by when I don’t think of all they did for my parents and grandmother.
But while hospice staff are, in my experience, the unsung heroes of Irish society, there comes a time when, quite simply, you should be allowed to check out.
When you see someone in unendurable physical pain and immense emotional distress, it is positively monstrous to prolong their suffering and delay the inevitable for a few more days or weeks.
That’s why I fervently hope this bill becomes law and dying Irish people at least have the option to make the most important choice any of us could ever have: the manner and timing of our own deaths.
I also want to see a free vote. As much as I disagree with the anti-euthanasia point of view, this is a moral matter that should be up to the individual conscience.
Thursday’s debate will be interesting.
Contrary to some of the more hysterical scare stories, this would not open the door to topping Granny when she outlives her usefulness