Euthanasia is a controversial topic.
For that reason it must be stressed that this blog does not seek to offer a moral argument one way or the other. It came to me when I was reading the recent case of Raymond Rees, who died aged 56. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, refused chemotherapy, and decided to make use of the Swiss clinic Dignitas with the aid of his partner Alan Rees. He took a lethal dose of drugs and passed away with his partner at his bed side.
What is particularly interesting about this story is when employing the services of Dignitas, the individual has to pay a sum of £4,500.Once additional travelling costs and hotel fees have been accounted for, a conservative estimate would put the bill at roughly £5,000.
Now, £5,000 is a fair old slice of money and is not a sum that everyone has access to, this could lead to some worrying complications.
With the intense media interest surrounding euthanasia, is there not a danger that, rightly or wrongly, Dignitas and the services it supplies are something the relatively well off can afford. At first this may seem a distasteful way of looking at it. However, if you contrast it with the issue of abortion you see the cause for alarm.
In countries where there are strict abortion laws (Ireland and Poland are two such examples), well off women can pay for the treatment in neighbouring countries. This has a distinctly ugly side, as poorer people who cannot afford to go abroad sometimes take desperate measures to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
Everyone is familiar with the term “back street abortions.” Could this not be a similar problem with euthanasia? There are a number of cases one could point to where assisted suicides have been carried out, usually by the individuals’ partner.
The courts in this country, at present, do not move to prosecute people who take their loved ones to die in Switzerland so long as there is no evidence of coercion. People who have been unable to make use of Dignitas’ services, for whatever reason (and this may well include financial reasons), are put through the motions of the courts.
Donald Mawditt, a 74 year old grandfather of four, was one such person. Donald assisted his wife to die after she had continuously asked him to do so. Once she had passed away, he phoned 999, waited for the police and ambulance, kissed his wife, and said “goodbye darling.” He did not go to jail, but was given a three year conditional discharge for pleading guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Looking at Euthanasia from a legal perspective throws up a very murky picture indeed. Contrasting it with the case of “back street abortions” is an interesting comparison to make because it highlights the moral dilemmas associated with it. One of the reasons for the law being changed in this country was because people were concerned for women who were aborting unwanted pregnancies without the proper medical care. Perhaps something similar lies in wait for euthanasia.
Joe Masi writes a weekly blog published every Tuesday on www.marketdraytonadvertiser.com.
