When? Ten reasons in favour of assisted suicide 

This is meant to be a contribution to the assisted dying debate. It is too late for the first parliamentary debate but that is just as well because that debate was a very timid one. Our MPs are very conservative irrespective of the party they belong to.

I kick off with an anecdote about the historian A J P Taylor. When going to Magdalen College for his entrance exam, his reputation preceded him, “I hear, “ said his examiner, “you have strong views on history,” “No, Sir,” replied the candidate, “I have extreme views but I hold them weakly.” 

The same applies to me. I also have extreme views on assisted dying, extreme because it goes much further than what any legislation would likely to adopt in the next few decades. I hold them weakly because I know not many people would accept them. I am no proselytiser, I do not want to persuade anyone to follow my views, or to act on them.

I’m an engineer by background. Numbers have been my companion through life. So in thinking this issue through, I look to objectivity rather than subjectivity. Cost benefit analysis seems to be the most relevant framework here for me. Let’s try and look at this without passion.

What are the costs? At this point I probably should disclose the fact that I am almost 95 years old. 94 and 11/12 to be honest. Has that changed my views? Not particularly. It has simply shifted the costs and benefits somewhat.

When the costs exceed the benefits is the time to act.

Let me give an example. Peter (his real name) was an old friend of mine. We were in the same class at school and kept in touch over the years. I often discussed the problems of life and death with him. When I last saw him, he said to me: “The time I spend finding the right pills; taking them; the time I spend applying four different ointments to parts of my body and washing my hands between them, plus the time I spend doing exercises recommended by my physio-therapist, attending funerals, and then on the internet trying to find out which one of my various symptoms will turn out to  be lethal in the near future… These are the costs. I am not left with much time to live. The benefits are that I can still look after myself. I do not need any help. The benefits are still higher than the costs. I am still alive.”

Peter died six months ago. I had only a brief note from his wife. She never liked me.

My mother was of a similar mindset. She always considered costs and benefits. She found life equally difficult in Hungary and in England. To live with my family in England or live on her own in Budapest was the choice. She tried both of them a number of times for shorter and longer periods but found them wanting. She was not suffering. She had just had enough of life.

It is often said of someone who takes their own life that the balance of their mind was disturbed. I don’t think this has general validity. The balance of my mother’s mind was never disturbed. She was capable of making rational decisions. The decision she took was in favour of death. The means was barbiturates collected over several months in Hungary, where they were still available at the time.

Even with the new Bill, the UK the law would remain very restrictive. You must be pretty close to death already. Overall, I feel it does not go nearly far enough. Here are my views in more detail in ten relevant points:

1) Unbearable pain should certainly be on the list. Our legislators are just too timid. To keep someone alive against his/her wishes who has unbearable pain is just cruelty. Surely you would put down a dog who is in unbearable pain? So why force it on your fellow human being?

2) I think persistence should be taken into account as a symbol of determination. If someone applies for assistance year after year, say for five consecutive years, the application should be granted independently of any medical condition. Who are they, a bunch of lawyers who in the name of society want to keep the person alive? That is cruelty too.

3) So far, I mentioned only single qualifying conditions. Cancer would qualify if you have only four months to live but not if you are expected to last nine months. I would argue that multiple conditions should also be considered, i.e. if death by cancer is not sufficiently close but the person suffers from another terminal disease as well then the two together might qualify. The suffering would be tremendous. Surely the death-wish should be granted.

4) I would like to include a condition which I believe is entirely ignored at the moment: the effect of the rate of change. By that, I mean sudden, uncontrolled decay in the functioning of one or more crucial organs, say going blind, and the person may not want to live with that condition. An application for assistance should be favourably considered.

5) The condition that people most often suffer from is slow decay in the functioning of various faculties. The likelihood is that sooner or later we shall all reach the stage when life is not worth living. This is the time when assistance is desperately needed. It should be granted.

6) I think bereavement should count too. I remember a case when a woman lost a child, a husband and her mother in a car accident. I would quite understand that such person might want to end her life.

7) The likelihood of the condition getting better must also be considered. For example, those with incurable conditions would be looked on more favourably, whether they have six months, or six years to live – if it is their wish to put an end to their life.

8) There is also the timing to be considered. When is the deed to be done? If it’s too early, you miss out on good points in life. If it’s too late, you can no longer do it yourself.

But there are two final points I have not mentioned. The next point is relevant to everyone. The final only to non-believers:

9) You may have surmised, but what I have not actually yet spelled out is that my mother did succeed in taking her life. She was 70. I was devastated. In a darkened room for months on end, I contemplated the issue from every point of view. Of course, the question of cost-benefit has to be wider issue: taking into account costs and benefits to not only the individual, but to those closest to them. That is an analysis where miscalculation can be rife. None of us can truly claim to know what is in someone else’s head. That too should be taken into account.

10) Finally, let me finish on a lighter note. As an atheist, I find it unfortunate that most religions bring God into the argument. If asked, I would say what Laplace said to Napoleon: “Sire, I did not need that hypothesis.”

The MPs who took part in the debate said they had to look deep within themselves to decide what to vote. In drawing up this list, I too have had to dig deep, and look back. Maybe I don’t feel quite as weakly about assisted dying as AJP Taylor claimed to feel about history after all.

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.