A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.
Following Geoffrey Whaley’s death at Dignitas in Switzerland, his widow sent the following letter to the UK Telegraph:
How a law to permit assisted dying would work
Sir — Last week I travelled to Dignitas in Switzerland, where Geoffrey, my dear husband of more than 50 years, died in my arms in order to avoid the ravages of end-stage motor neurone disease.
I am fully aware that people will hold a range of views on assisted dying. However, there are several objections I wish to make to Charles Moore’s take (Comment, February 9).
Mr Moore, whom I have followed for many years, is rightly concerned about the impact that any change in the law could have on vulnerable people. But Mr Moore was not present at Portcullis House the week before Geoff died, where he spoke to parliamentarians and made it quite clear that he would not support any change that did not put in place robust safeguards.
The law my family is calling for would ensure — through two independent doctors and a High Court Judge — that only those who are in the final phases of a terminal illness and are of sound mind and settled intent could request an assisted death. Dignitas required detailed medical reports and several capacity assessments. Even the final act has to be controlled by the individual — my husband had to swallow the medicine through a straw, entirely unaided by anyone else.
Mr Moore’s suggestion that Geoff could have avoided the police intrusion in our lives had he “decided to live” is ridiculous. Geoff’s illness had already taken that choice away from him. He simply wanted to go on his own terms, and as his wife I would do anything to support his final wish. My actions were under investigation, not his. To have seen Geoff suffer against his wishes for several more weeks, if not months, would have been unimaginably worse.
I also take issue with Mr Moore’s assertion that exposing cases like Geoff’s conveys a “message of despair” to others facing terminal illness. Mr Moore’s brother-in-law felt able to endure the immense suffering he faced, but Geoff did not and that does not make him any less “brave and honest”. Knowing that Geoff could die in the way he wanted to allowed us to cope with his illness and make the most of his time we had left with him. To me, Geoff’s decision was just as “inspiring” and it did not devalue his final months or years in any way.
If places like Oregon in the US can put the necessary hurdles in place to protect the weak and vulnerable, and provide the option only for specific cases, surely it is not beyond the means of the lawmakers in this country to follow their example.
Ann Whaley
Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire
The article by Charles Moore to which Ann Whaley was referring appeared in the UK Telegraph on February 9, 2019. Mrs Whaley took particular exception to two fatuous statements: that Mr Whaley could have avoided the police intrusion had he “decided to live”, and in mentioning the way his brother-in-law died of cancer as an example of “dignity in dying”.
“It was a terrible thing to watch. But his last years of life were not worthless: they were inspiring. Nor were they unendurable: he endured them.”
In citing one individual’s heroic attitude to suffering as an exemplar, Moore deliberately fails to acknowledge that some people would, given the chance, choose to avoid suffering.
Further comment is unnecessary, except to point out that Charles Moore converted to Roman Catholicism following the Church of England’s decision to allow the ordination of women as priests in 1992.