Yesterday evening I watched a documentary on iPlayer that had a rather profound effect on me and my attitudes towards a subject that no one ever really talks about: death. The documentary follows Terry Pratchett as he meets various people who suffer from debilitating diseases and who have considered, or are in the process of striving for, assisted suicide. You may have seen it on TV the other day when it was on, but if not you can find the documentary (although for a limited time only I'm guessing, since it is iPlayer) on the following link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0120dxp/Terry_Pratchett_Choosing_to_Die/
Now then.
Until recently the idea of dying never phased me all too much. What's the use in engrossing yourself in a fate that ultimately you have no control over? After all, everyone suffers the same end, and I had been 'dead' for billions of years before I was born anyway and that didn't bother me too much. Live life in the present and all that. However, with my diagnosis and the initial stages of uncertainty surrounding my illness, for the briefest of stages I was faced with my own mortality. As you can imagine it was scary to comprehend, but it was luckily a feeling that went as quickly as it came due to the early successes of my treatment. That doesn't change the fact that my complexion over death has changed significantly, but it was only after seeing this program that I've properly attempted to tackle my feelings over it.
I think it's the idea of death, and the uncertainty that surrounds what comes after, that shits me up a bit. Not the dying process itself. I fully believe that the human brain was not wired to comprehend such a concept, yet we as a species have evolved to such an incredible extent that we are forced to face the facts when it comes to our own mortality. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm sure most people struggle with this as much as I am now. The idea of not existing is genuinely unsettling to me, and although it may be irrational, I can't get past that notion of not being around any more. How does that even work?
Maybe some sort of religious theory of an afterlife can bring solace to such gloomy thoughts? Perhaps, yet I can't get fully on board with such beliefs. I for one believe that religion came about as a way for us homo sapiens to deal with the breaking news of mortality many millennia ago. Whatever the scenario of such an afterlife, it gave people a reason to live, as if living life by a moral conduct will ease the realisation that the life you lead will eventually end. 'Death is just the beginning.' Were it not for such huge scientific advancements that have obviously come about long before my time, then I think I would find that belief a great one to subscribe to. Now I just see it as nothing more than a cold comfort.
Now, onto the documentary and this company Dignatas. Another grey area that I'm not going to offer much of a concrete opinion on I'm afraid, but here are my general musings. First off the bat I was pretty astounded at the general state of health that both men were in - neither were in a condition where they were anywhere near death. I was under the impression that one had to be a bit closer to the end to be considered for the process. After watching the first ten minutes or so the motive for the man suffering from Motor Neurone Disease became quickly apparent - to protect his wife and spare her the agony of watching him deteriorate rapidly over a relatively short space of time.
Fair enough, I initially thought. But the more I think about it the more that attitude unnerves me a bit. Consider this if you will: tomorrow scientists announce that they've only gone and cracked MND and have come up with a viable cure that they can begin distributing immediately. How does the wife feel then? Rather distraught, I would say. I've been conditioned to the school of thought that it's not over 'till it's over, and in many ways I think the same applies here. A man sound of mind manages to walk into a building, have a cup of coffee, share a tender moment with his wife and then drink something that ultimately kills him. Something about that does not sit right with me, even though I want it to.
Of course, there is a flip side. Now I do think that when a human being is suffering, and I mean really going through a lot of pain that has been caused by a terminal illness where there truly is no hope left, then that human being should unquestionably hold the right to end his or her own life. I think it's barbaric that we can put a cat or a dog out of its misery yet when it comes to a human life, we can't see past prolonging the agony. I don't accept that the politicians of this country believe that this is the right thing to do; rather, they do not have the balls to tackle the issue head on, and therefore we proceed in what I believe is a primitive way of dealing with the issue. It will be interesting to see how this matter progresses in the next decade, both in this country and internationally.
The question for me is, where do you draw the line? Should physical pain be the only prerequisite to being allowed to go through with a procedure such as this? Or should mental pain also be taken into account? I mentioned that in the case of John from the Pratchett documentary I felt a slight unease in the circumstances surrounding his decision. That's just me talking, perhaps others see a completely reasoned approach here. But who gives us the right to judge such reasoning? If anything like this is going to come to fruition in a way that it has in Switzerland, then it would seemingly do so under the credence of 'mind your own life.'
I feel I've covered a lot here. You might wonder how the documentary made me wonder about the intricacies of my own life, but you'll be relieved to hear I have no such desires to look into the process of ending my time here on Earth. Yet the program brought a resurgence of feelings that I've been dwelling on here and there for the past five months or so, and it feels good to express them through the medium of this blog. Ultimately the good old 'live for the now' expression certainly rings true for me over anything. I have a lot of good things to live for, and whilst it's daunting trying to understand what we will never know, there's little point sulking over it in the long run. Enjoy what you have.
Thanks for reading, and I'm sorry if this has been a bit too morbid as far as light reads go. But I do hope this inspires some kind of debate in the comment section.
Big love,
Ryan.
Morbid or not (which I don't think it was) you raised some interesting points. The subject of Euthanasia has always been a little polemic but I agree, if we can choose to end the life of our beloved pets in the name of HUMANity then why on earth can the same principles not be applied for the derivative of that word..HUMAN. I think the issue initially was that we were a God-fearing society and that killing and suicide were mortal sins and were therefore made illegal as a result. In modern day society however we have not taken into account the rather large proportion of non-believers who should be allowed to choose what to do with their own bodies and life. (I might note at this point that adultery is a sin but a rather large number of people, even some of the religious types, fail to kick up a fuss over the consequences of flouting that one, even committing is themselves!) I think the inability to end one's life for fear of the repercussions for our loved ones is a disgrace and I think Switzerland have the right idea.
ReplyDeleteI hope you're right and that one day our 'multicultural' society and Government can also accept that mercy for the weak and infirm is a far more admirable quality than maintaining an outdated legal system!
This came across a little more viciously than I intended. Never mind, its directed at the powers that be.
Once again congratulations on the results :) x
I think what it comes down to is that the whole matter is given a negative spin by what are outdated and irrelevant principles. I'm not talking about those who are of sound health deciding to end their life on a complete whim, but rather those who are in absolute agony yet must endure because of the cowardly nature of governments. It's an issue that must at least be addressed properly and given the respect it deserves.
ReplyDeleteAnd cheers! I had no idea you were part of the blogosphere. Will follow for sure, though I fear the fashion element may alienate me somewhat, as I have basically no understanding of anything concerned with it haha.
What i thought was most sad about the cases of the guys with MND was that they had to go to dignitas at that stage, because if they left it much longer, they would deteriorate to the point where they would not be able to travel at all. Whilst I think hospice and palliative care are entirely valid choices, that's what they should be - you should be able to choose your own end. whether you'd prefer to get it over with quickly or if you'd like to have every last day that you've got, that should be your decision, not the government's.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post Ryan, and I'd generally agree with everything you said. Have you ever heard of Earnest Becker? He wrote a book in the 70's called The Denial of Death (Wiki page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death), that is very similar to your way of thinking, if not a little more brutal. It basically argues that all human society and culture is in some way an attempt to deny the inevitability of death (does exactly what it says on the tin, really).
ReplyDeleteIt gets really interesting, however, when it starts to deconstruct the way even atheists / non-religious people think of death. I mean, you're absolutely right in saying you can't perceive of your own death - such a thing is, by definition, impossible. Death is the absolute cessation of perception, and everything we do - seeing, thinking, interacting with the world - is in some way an act of perception. Death is the ultimate absence. So how do we deal with it? We frame our death through the perceptions of others. We like to think that something we've done or created - be it a family, a work of art or just a lingering memory - will pervade the world we've left behind, and some part of us will continue to live on. We can perceive of this, after all. It's not a contradiction. But this is what Becker attacks. He reveals the flaws in thinking this way, and how it is a thought process which is simply a further denial of death, along with religion and society and all the rest.
When you start thinking like this, it starts to freak you out. Like, we all know about Shakespeare - he's succeeded in his 'immortality project', as Becker calls it. But what are we ACTUALLY remembering when we learn about Shakespeare? We have his words, but those are merely relics, like the decaying ancient structures in Egypt. We know a little about his life, but such details don't bring us any closer to the actual person (unless you think that Amy Winehouse is immortal for appearing in so many tabloid newspapers). No; Shakespeare has become a myth, and the person behind the myth has become irrelevant; imperceptible.
But doesn't this apply to everyone? At what point, if any, can a person perfectly preserve themselves and their memory? Being a celebrity doesn't make you immortal; it makes a myth, completely distanced from your 'real self'. No; if there is an earnest and worthwhile way of preserving yourself, it must be in those close to you. Family, friends. Real memories. But then you realise; that has been happening for tens of thousands of years.
I mean, we like to think of ourselves as part of a new, emerging, privileged society: THE TWENTIETH (or, 21st now, I suppose) CENTURY. We have radios and TVs and mobile phones and the internet. Everything that came before is irrelevant. We're better than the Anglo Saxons or those brutes in the Medieval times - we're smarter and more concrete. We won't crumble like the Egyptians. Impossible.
But when you demystify the myth, when you become disillusioned with the part of the immortality project which applies to TV and radio and blogging and living forever through technology (something that we're very excited about now - EVERYONE CAN HAVE A BLOG, EVERYONE CAN LIVE FOREVER), and if you try to seek immortality through more immediate groundings (family, friends etc), you realise that you're exactly the same as the millions of humans who've come before you. Without this death-denying crap, you stand shoulder to shoulder with your Victorian great-great grandfather, your Anglo Saxon ancestor, your Neanderthal precursor. You are but one in a long chain of 'selves', each trying to validate your existence, a project which will eventually be rendered completely irrelevant when the stars burn and everything that was once known by human minds is scattered as ash across the universe.
Ahem. Sorry, I reached the character limit there, hehe.
ReplyDeleteMy point, if I even have one, is that the only reaction you can have to Earnest Becker is to disagree, even if that disagreement is illogical. I never did get around to reading Becker's whole book - it was too depressing. You start to agree with him, and the more you agree, the less validity you find in life. It would be impossible to completely agree with what he is saying - to do so would be literally suicidal, as you would be rejecting every single psychological incentive to continue eating, breathing and sleeping - recognising them as entirely pointless. So at the very least, you have to say to yourself, 'I am going to deny death'. That's what Becker taught me, basically. That I'm denying death and - you know what? - I'm perfectly okay with that.
Hmm. Sorry for going on a bit of a tangent there. In short - I AGREE WIF YOO. Yeah!
Anyways hope all's well, Ryan. We'll have to organise a get-together at some point - preferably with the prerequisite that no-one's allowed to babble on about philosophy and death ;p
Much love x