Should Assisted Suicide Be Broadcast Live on TV?
Controversy rages in Great Britain after a television channel broadcasts a man's quest to "die with dignity."
The subject of assisted suicide periodically arises in the Great Britain. And when it does, the debate is as fierce as it has been in the United States.
This time around, controversy has been raging for weeks after Sky Television decided to air the actual death of a man from Harrowgate, North Yorkshire, as he prepared to die at a suicide clinic called Dignitas in Switzerland. Dignitas has seen several British citizens use its services to end painful and debilitating lives, but this was the first time one of their procedures was actually broadcast on British television.
Sky (Rupert Murdoch’s news outlet in Britain) produced a rather moving piece where the sufferer himself, Craig Ewert, makes the case for his ability to take his own life to save himself suffering. He even, between gasps of oxygen, manages to pose some interesting questions to the Christian opponents of the procedure.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made clear his opposition to assisted suicide and any legislation that would make it easier. This was prompted by a query during Prime Minister’s Question Time in the House of Commons, where the MP who represents Craig Ewert’s district expressed objection to the broadcast. Brown replied to the query.
I believe that it is necessary to ensure that there is never a case in this country where a sick or elderly person feels under pressure to agree to an assisted death or somehow feels it is the expected thing to do.
Currently, it is technically illegal to aide or abet a suicide in Britain. This is an ongoing problem for people who are seriously and chronically ill and who wish to end their lives and it is a third-rail for politicians and most do not seem willing to address the ambiguity in the law that was originally passed in the late 1960s.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Andrew Ian Dodge blogs at Dodgeblogium.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
25 Comments
1. Happy Pick:This is horrible!!!! Suicide is murder of one’s self. Common sense and at least minimal background in Christianity’s 10 Commandments gives us the answer: THOU SHALT NOT KILL! Suicide is killing of one’s self. Furthermore, to be televised while committing such a crime, is to be an exhabitionalist, while one cruel enough to watch is mentally sick! If someone is stupid enough to kill him/herself, don’t drag others into your selfishness and self-pity.
Dec 14, 2008 - 11:22 am 2. Mary Jackson:There is a case for assisted suicide being illegal, but compassion shown in the sentencing. As now, in fact.
I’d hate to go the way of the Dutch and the Swiss. So very … er … clinical.
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:19 pm 3. Andrew Ian Dodge:Ouch “stupid enough” just a bit judgemental eh? You go through the pain of nasty disease and then see how high and mighty you are.
If you do not have sovereignty over yourself you have no freedom. You are basically saying that he has to suffer horrible pain because his ending his life offends you.
Oh yes and the 10 Commandments aren’t “Christian” per se and existed a long time before Christianity began.
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:24 pm 4. Dave D:Andrew, what’s ironic is that legal euthanasia erodes autonomy, it doesn’t enhance it. The Remmelink report on dutch euthanasia showed the majority of euthansia committed was involuntary and doctor initiated, not patient.
There are also some cases of it being done for quality of life reasons that could easily be addressed by treatment.
Also, some patients cite things like “being a burden” or psychiatric reasons not related to crippling pain or catastrophic loss of body functions. Even when consent is given, it may be caused by mental duress and not a clear rational understanding of the risks and benefits of treatment.
To argue that it enhances autonomy is not being honest to the serious problems euthanasia can cause. It’s also dishonest to frame objections solely as religious arguments, because that is often an attempt to try and disqualify them a priori.
Dec 14, 2008 - 1:00 pm 5. Andrew Ian Dodge:Dave D. Did you perchance watch the piece by the guy himself that I have linked to in the piece. It makes for interesting viewing.
Dec 14, 2008 - 1:47 pm 6. Jarody:Why should one follow an unjust law?
Dec 14, 2008 - 2:06 pm 7. Blue Collar Todd:I like how Liberalism is making the murder of the sick, elderly, defenseless and even the unborn into an act of compassion. In their world view the best way to deal with poverty, sickness and the unwanted is to justify their murder under the pretext of “compassion”.
Dec 14, 2008 - 3:36 pm 8. Elle:People should be able to chose the time of their death,whether sick or well,without interference by the state. Those who do not wish to die should not be coerced to do so but should not be left alive to suffer horrible lingering deaths because they are no longer able to communicate. In America, particularly, we undermedicate those who are suffering,in order to keep them alive even when they have expressed a clear wish to terminate life under such circumstances.
Dec 14, 2008 - 3:41 pm 9. Andrew Ian Dodge:Let those who have never experienced such pain themselves or watched a loved one die marinate in their own self righteousness. But we should not let them interfere with those who are actually facing these heartbreaking situations and have a different view.
BCT: who has called for that? You didn’t watch the video did you? You also miss the premise of the piece which questions whether or not showing the actual act in a documentary is a good idea in the debate. I am not sure one way or other if it is or not…hence the piece.
I do however believe “living wills” and the right to die in such cases is paramount. It is a matter that has been in my mind for several years not because of anyone else but because of my own serious medical situation (that has since passed thankfully). The experiences of the last 2 years of my life have made me even more certain of the value of a “living will”.
Dec 14, 2008 - 4:56 pm 10. Marie Claude:Should Assisted Suicide Be Broadcast Live on TV?
NO it’s just non respectuous for the person that is dying, and an attempt to shok one’s sensibility ; The TV nowadays have no limits in the trash.
If the person think that his/her life is non-bearable anymore, because of pains, it’s his/her own business to decide to stop them.
Dec 14, 2008 - 5:01 pm 11. Someone75:This is a world of difference between televised suicide as exploitation and televised suicide in a journalistic context. This program was obviously not filmed to appeal to merely prurient interests. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. But don’t impede on my right to free speech.
Dec 14, 2008 - 7:29 pm 12. Nick:I don’t think its that horrible. But I do think its stupid that someone needs to have someone else help they commit suicide. I mean, C’mon, if you can’t even kill yourself without someone else than you really are worthless.
Dec 14, 2008 - 7:54 pm 13. Sandrider:The title of this post is “Should Assisted Suicide Be Broadcast Live on TV?”; only two out of the 12 comments so far answered that. I’ll say “Yes”, as long as executions & abortions are broadcast, too. And uncensored footage from Iraq & Afghanistan. Let’s see those kids die in real time. It’s all journalism, right ?
Dec 15, 2008 - 1:11 am 14. Tristan Phillips:Broadcast suicides on TV? Why not? Those who don’t like it can change the channel. We already show most of people’s lives on TV thanks to all the reality shows. Might as well show the final piece we all have to face sooner or later.
As for suicide itself…I’m always amused how people are willing to decide what *others* may do for their lives. They’ve never had to face someone who’s drinking morphine like water as it fails to stop the pain. They’ve never seen someone in the final stages of a painful, drawn out death praying for release but don’t get it thanks to modern medicine and righteous indignation. May those of you who are willing to tell other people what they may or may not do with their own life suffer a long, drawn out death with no respite, peace, or dignity you commit so many others to every day.
Dec 15, 2008 - 4:39 am 15. Andrew Ian Dodge:Well the person involved wanted it to be broadcast as part of the documentary. I am just interested to know if it actually as advanced or hurt the debate that needs to take place about the subject.
TP: Yes I agree with your sentiments on the subject. I find that younger adults who have never had a relative or friend die that is close to them of a prolonged illness tend to be the most self-righteous and sure of themselves.
Dec 15, 2008 - 8:49 am 16. Dave D:andrew, yes i watched it. It doesn’t change much for me though, because I already understood the arguments pro or con. As for displaying it, it honestly can’t be worse than watching saw IV. This is shown not to be gratuitous, but to make a point.
I’d say to him if i were his brother that it’s in no means suffering to me to have you alive. That i’d do whatever is needed or whatever it takes so that you can have the best life possible. If anything, we should enable more and better hospice care and less financial burden arising from such.
It may seem heartless, but in addition to the personal side, we have to consider the political ramifications of the act as well. It’s possible to have the best motives in passing legislation only for it to turn into something corrosive.
Dec 15, 2008 - 10:05 am 17. Andrew Ian Dodge:Taking political ramifications into consideration is not heartless but realistic. It never ceases to amaze me, and is probably why I am a libertarian, how badly abused laws are by certain parties.
An abuser of laws that springs to mind is the RIAA. Their actions are so bad a leading constitutional scholar has declared their misuse of the law unconstitutional.
Dec 15, 2008 - 10:54 am 18. Cole Younger:Yes, suicide should be broadcast…as should the execution of convicted criminals…and as should combat. Most people have never seen real violence…they’ve seen movies, TV shows, docu-dramas, even file footage of Nazi death camps & the Killing Fields…but none of it seems real…Generally speaking, the blood is fake and the actors get up and walk away when the director calls ‘cut’!
Seeing real death may have the effect of sobering the blood-thirsty and foolish among us.
TVs have tuners. If a person doesn’t want to watch s/he may change the channel, but all adults should see the death of another before allowing anger, hate & rage to color their world view. One caveat: when combat is televised don’t expect to see many Americans die…our troops are good at what they do: they’re merciless and without pity in combat…effective and efficient; but true humanitarians to their vanquished foes. Captured enemies are treated fairly — if not gently; enemy wounded receive the same care our wounded receive; and the basics of life support are promptly provided — food, water, shelter and protection…There is a lesson there for us all. Life is always hard, sometimes brutal…but even in the worst of times, being humane is what makes us human.
Dec 15, 2008 - 7:13 pm 19. Andrew Ian Dodge:CY: Agree with you on all points.
Dec 16, 2008 - 7:41 am 20. Ann:The broadcasting of the event doesn’t make it any more real (except in perceptions). The broadcasting is not a problem in and of itself. Another example: the broadcasting of pornography is a problem secondary to the filming of pornography and the abuse that occured during production. We are not required to experience or directly deal with all forms of crap in life, but we are perhaps wise to not spend a lot of energy trying to act like it doesn’t happen.
I’m afraid (being a conservative Christian myself) that much of the anger at the broadcast is driven by the fear of being forced to face what suicidal individuals are choosing. Nobody’s being forced to watch it.
I apply these principles to my own tv-watching and, as a result, watching less than 7-8 hours a week. Nothing there I want to see.
Dec 17, 2008 - 11:28 am 21. David W. Lincoln:Far be it for me to want to be crass, but is Craig Ewert the only person on the face of the earth with what is afflicting him? What about others who have not given up, like he has.
Take a look at the differences and learn.
Dec 17, 2008 - 1:20 pm 22. mike:How far would medicine have progressed if all of the people dying with cancer over the past fifty years had decided to end their lives. Don’t we owe dying to those who come after us, in the same way those who died before us contributed greatly to cures? You didn’t really think all medicine for disease came from tiny little animals running around in a cage.
Dec 17, 2008 - 7:30 pm 23. deguello:Why not? This is the nation that made eminem a millionaire,considers Obama profound,gave us jerry springer,and will buy/sell anything.Hey!I got a concept that will be an instant hit with feminazis, how about televising late-term abortions?
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:53 am 24. Andrew Ian Dodge:This sort of knowing self-righteousness is what makes this debate so difficult. How judgemental can you possible be? DVL has similar methods.
This is about choice for the individual.
Mike as a former cancer patient (last year) and trial guinea-pig I can tell you making people in terminal painful shape live in such a state to serve as test-beds for future cancer sufferers is cruel. I was glad to help, however people should not be forced to do so against their will.
There is a very fascistic view from some about the dying. Because of religious conviction you feel that you are willing to use the force of government to make some live through pain and suffering at the end of their life. And yet you claim to be doing it from a position of compassion?
Dec 22, 2008 - 7:46 am 25. Natalie Bennett:The Green Party has taken this on politically – it supports a law for voluntary euthanasia with all of the usual safeguards. Yes it is considered “brave” because of all of the religious fuss – but actually, is only in line with general public opinion (which surveys generally show run 75%-plus in favour.)
Dec 22, 2008 - 1:22 pm