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.’
….continue reading
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.