David Hill: A way to beat disintegration and ugliness

The Death with Dignity private member's bill on euthanasia has been chosen by ballot for debate and a conscience vote in Parliament.

This comes soon after a decision by Grey Power to canvass its members' views on euthanasia. Those views will of course vary hugely - just as they will among MPs during the coming debate. They may very well reflect a shift towards accepting euthanasia as an option for those who believe in it.

I am not a member of Grey Power, although I will soon qualify. I am a supporter of euthanasia being available as a legal, voluntary, meticulously defined and meticulously controlled choice for those whose lives have become unbearable through pain and/or degradation. I emphasise those qualifications.

Any discussion is bound to raise certain often-heard, intensely held objections. I respect the views of most of the people who express most of these objections. But here are my responses to their anticipated claims:

Life is a divine gift; no human has the right to end it. Those who hold such beliefs have every right to refuse euthanasia. They do not have the right to impose their views on those who believe differently.

Legalising euthanasia will result in a cheapening of life, and will lead to increased abortions. A decision to weigh up the purpose and state of one's life and to decide whether to end it seems to treat life respectfully, not cheaply. The abortion parallel does not hold. Euthanasia involves a deliberate choice made by the person.

Euthanasia negates all that hospitals stand for. Which is why a hospice or private home is more suitable. I might also mention that "hospital" and "hospice" both derive from "host", with that word's overtones of support and comfort. And if the patient wants support and comfort to end his/her life ...

Medical science will keep finding new ways to alleviate pain and prolong happy and productive life. Excellent. When this happens, who would wish to die? Until it happens, why should some people have to suffer pain and degradation?

A person in extreme pain or distress might request euthanasia, then change his or her mind. Quite true, which is why nearly all proposed legislation includes what might crudely be called a time-delay clause.

Euthanasia will mean increased pressure on the elderly from - to be crude again - their heirs and dependants. An opinion presented as a fact. It puzzles me that people who oppose euthanasia because it "cheapens life" should also hold such a cheap view of the living. The obvious response is that the sorts of medical and legal procedures proposed by pro-euthanasia groups would provide as many safeguards as possible against such pressure.

It will leave relatives and friends feeling guilty. The reverse of this argument is whether others' wishes should be placed ahead of the patient's. If the dying person makes it clear the decision is entirely his/hers, any guilt should be minimised.

Legalised euthanasia would mean intolerable responsibility and pressure for doctors. Not if those appropriate procedures and safeguards are set in law. Proposed legislation allows the right of refusal to doctors who oppose such an option. And would the pressures be any worse than those on a doctor who is straining medical resources to prolong a painful, degraded life?

Other arguments will also be raised and they will be raised with great sincerity.

I repeat that no case for euthanasia I have ever heard presents it as other than a totally voluntary and strictly controlled choice. Those who do not wish it as an option for themselves must be free to make that decision.

I believe in it as a choice because I want to live well and die well. (This seems a good place to remember that the "eu" in euthanasia comes from the Greek word for "well/good".)

Most of us wish our lives to be good and dignified shapes. Legalised euthanasia seems one resource among many of achieving a shape that does not end in disintegration and ugliness.

* David Hill is a New Plymouth writer.