BBC: Terry Pratchett Choosing To Die – Documentary to broadcast assisted suicide at Swiss euthanasia Dignitas clinic
A few weeks back I blogged in support of the BBC’s decision to air the NATURAL dying moments of an 84-year-old cancer sufferer, as part of their ’Inside the human body’ series.
I argued:
The process of dying has become sanitised and detached from our experience as we relegate the process to hospitals. In the past of course, most deaths took place at home, exposing us to – and normalising – the dying process within the context of the family experience.
Consigning death to the hospital environment, even with our excellent palliative care, has gone some way in elevating our fear of the dying process. It’s made the experience alien to us and this has provided fuel for death cult assisted suicide advocates.
[....]
It’s about time we re-familiarise ourselves with the process of dying and this programme will go some way towards this. Hopefully our superb palliative care will be on show as this would help to undermine the euthanasia movement.
As a result of that blog post, I was invited by the BBC World News Service to debate with an ethicist in Canada, on the rights and wrongs of the BBC’s decision to broadcast this. I was arguing in favour of the broadcast, and the ethicist in opposition.
During our debate the ethicist – Margaret Somerville, McGill University, Montreal, Canada – argued a ‘slippery slope’ approach by broadcasters. I conceded that this was of concern, but shouldn’t deter us in this instance.
Towards the end of the debate Margaret asked me directly what I thought of the concept of broadcasting the dying moments of a suicide. My answer was that I would find it abominable.
Well, on June 13th at 9pm, BBC2 will do exactly as Margaret warned me:
The BBC will next week air a controversial documentary where a motor neurone disease sufferer takes his own life.
Sitting on a sofa with his wife at his side, viewers will see Peter drink a liquid, fall into a deep sleep and then die.
The five-minute sequence, filmed at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, is part of a forthcoming BBC2 programme fronted by Sir Terry Pratchett.
The corporation has defended its decision to film Peter’s last moments as part of its exploration into the realities of assisted death.
BBC commissioning editor for documentaries Charlotte Moore said she did not believe the ‘carefully edited but unflinching’ scene could have been left out.
She said: ‘It is an extremely powerful and challenging scene – raw yet moving – but above all it is honest.
‘Some people may question why we included this scene in the final cut. But in my view I don’t see how we could omit it.’
Personally, I’m disturbed by this and believe the BBC has crossed the rubicon and are attempting to normalise suicide on TV.
I find myself in general agreement with Dr Peter Saunders:
By putting their extensive public resources behind this campaign and by giving Terry Pratchett, who is both a patron on DID [Dignity in Dying] and key funder of the controversial Falconer Commission, a platform to propagate his views, the BBC is actively fuelling this move to impose assisted suicide on this country and runs the risk of pushing vulnerable people over the edge into taking their lives. It is also flouting both its own guidelines on suicide portrayal and impartiality.
This portrayal of suicide by the BBC, along with Pratchett’s celebrity endorsement, breaches both international and BBC guidelines on suicide portrayal and risks encouraging further suicides amongst those who are sick, elderly or disabled. It is both a recipe for elder abuse and also a threat to vulnerable people, many of whom already feel under pressure at a time of financial crisis and threatened health cuts to end their lives for fear of being a burden on others. The dangers of portraying suicide on the media (Werther effect, suicide contagion, or copycat suicide) are well recognised in the medical literature.
[.....]
Where are the balancing programmes showing the benefits of palliative care, promoting investment on social support for vulnerable people or highlighting the great dangers of legalisation which have convinced parliaments in Australia, France, Canada, Scotland and the US to resist any change in the law in the last twelve months alone? One will not it seems, hear any of this from the BBC.
Indeed.
I should have heeded Margaret Somerville’s ‘slippery slope’ argument.
Little did I know just how slippery and steep the slope would be.
Tags: Law Moral Ethical, Media, Science & Medical
June 7th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
What next from the BBC? Someone slitting their wrists? Jumping in front of a train? Hanging themselves? All the while being filmed for a TV show whilst the reporters do nothing as it is all in the interests of reporting? It is indeed a slippery slope.
June 7th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
As someone who worked in palliative care for many years – and also with people with long term disabilities and people with dementia I have spent a good portion of my time listening to and reading the different arguments around euthanasia. I know the general view of palliative care consultants (i.e. senior doctors) is that we should not change the law on assisted suicide or euthanasia. The main reason is because it would mean introducing legislation that would limit the use of passive euthanasia that takes place at present.
I am afraid appeals like Dr Peter Saunders’ above, don’t really do much to change my view on a subject, as it has the flavour of ‘moral panic’ – lots of emotive language. I have worked in palliative care and in residential care for many years and have rarely come across: ‘vulnerable people [who] already feel under pressure at a time of financial crisis and threatened health cuts to end their lives for fear of being a burden on others. ‘ Most people are selfish and think about themselves, only a small proportion of people think about the financial implications of their care – believe me!
It is the sort of comment that is endemic in much that is proffered as a reason for this or that social policy. The BBC shows programs about sport and healthy eating – do we see the nation getting thinner? No, so why the moral panic about a program about people’s personal choice to end their lives? There is a degree of patronisation in such ‘moral panic’ arguments. ‘People need protection…’ – the irony is these are often the same folk who then complain we live in a nanny state.
I have seen people live with terrible chronic disabilities, pain, loss of dignity and independence – very rarely have I ever come across someone who has said they want to be assisted to die – and I get the feeling some of the ones that do, do so because they know it won’t happen. That said, I wouldn’t blame someone if they chose to end their life because of terminal illness etc. And as a social worker I have fought for the right of a person to end proactive treatment. Yet I wouldn’t support active euthanasia because of the possibility of abuse – tho’ I suspect that the possibility is probably much smaller than we think. But legislation is often created to deal with the exception rather than the rule.
What I think is really needed is a debate about a person’s right to end treatment. My cousin and former foster mother died two days ago, she had ovarian cancer. She decided to end treatment and I greatly admired for it. Too often you see people limping on, buoyed up by drugs and technology – but is that living? There is much emotive language etc. around the subject of doctors playing God, when it comes to ending life – particularly with regards to abortion, but less is said about doctors playing God continuing life, desiring quantity over quality. I have worked in dementia care – particularly end stage care – and I really do wonder whether it is ethical to cheat death for some of these patients, by the use of heart medication and antibiotics. To me it is cruel, when passive euthanasia offers a way out. Both myself and my parents (both aged 85) have made it known that should we suffer from dementia or any condition (massive stroke etc.) that permanently and severely limits our mental capacity then nature should be allowed to take its course should we get an chest infection or suffer congestive heart failure or cardiac arrest. Believe me, when you’ve seen someone who was once a normal individual, eating their own faeces and incapable of conversation or comprehension of what is said to them, you do have to question if it is moral to continue to artificially extend these people’s life spans with heart medication and antibiotics.
One of the last duty situations I was part of as a social worker concerned the intensive care department of the hospital where I worked. The senior nurse called requesting we section a patient on the ward. He was in his mid-50s, he had lived with long term kidney failure (20 years or more), he had been admitted for treatment but had become very ill and was told that without an operation he would die. He refused the operation. He became more ill, was transferred to intensive care, where he passed into a coma. With nursing he recovered a little, regained consciousness and complained that he should have been allowed to die. He was fed up with dialysis three times a week, year in, year out, he was fed up of being in and out of hospital every year with infections and problems, he was fed up of having little quality of life. What did the ward do? Put him into a drug induced coma, left him a few days, woke up again, hoping he would have changed his mind and again he complained bitterly that he had not been allowed to die. This went on three times until we were called because the ward staff decided he was mentally unwell. We assessed him, as did a psychiatrist, we spoke with his family who although upset, said that the hospital should abide by their husband’s/father’s wishes; there was no doubt in our mind the man had capacity and was making a rational and informed choice – there was no obvious mental ill health, save distress and anxiety because he was being forcibly kept alive. The warning we gave the ward was that they could be seen to be infringing the man’s civil liberties by forcing him into unconsciousness against his will. What was the real issue? No one wanted to take responsibility for the man’s death – or have the man die on the ward. It was a fascinating case. In the end he was transferred to another hospital out of our jurisdiction, so I don’t know what happened, but I think the case highlights the issues in such a case. Who has the right to decide?
Sorry didn’t see Tim’s comment – yes I agree, the real question, which I have not asked in my ramblings above is: is this really appropriate television material? I don’t think it is, but I think the only real casuality is the fact they can’t see they are gaining entertainment from someone else’s misery. Saunder’s fears are probably a little exagerated; people’s immunity to bad taste isn’t!
P
June 18th, 2011 at 10:44 am
That was an extremely interesting reply Peter, I would have loved to have known the outcome of the patient too!!
I watched the Terry Pratchet broadcast on replay tv – after being told that it was very sad but brilliant viewing – I honestly wish I hadn’t – I think some things are better “unseen”. Peter Smedley’s final moments are stuck in my mind, I found it very intense. I felt nervous as well as upset that this was a man who still had more years to live and had full mental capacity. I don’t mean that if his mind was incapacitated he had more right to die, but he was so aware and alert.
I completely agree with people having the right to die when they choose but I just felt the Dignitas approach to assist suicide, whether it was just in the editing, was too matter of fact, they didn’t do anything to try to persuade people NOT to die. I found it all somewhat perverse. Nobody (the escorts) seemed to be upset by it or were heard to ask him to wait for another few days, weeks or months.
I’m not sure there will be copycats out there as many people wouldn’t be as articulate as those in the programme or be able to afford the costs involved. What we may find is that the current trend for families to continue to assist their dying will continue and eventually it will be accepted in the law.
I’d just like to add that it all scares me, as with everything else, it is so open to abuse.