Death: what is it good for?

SO, read an interesting report today from the UK describing the acquittal of Bridget Gilderdale in the alleged attempted murder of her daughter Lynne, an ME sufferer of many years who because her symptoms were so severe, frequently asked to be allowed to die. Her mother, as the report describes, injected Lynne’s IV line with crushed morphine tablets, and when this didn’t work, simply injected air to produce the embolism that finally ended her daughter’s life.

Its a tragic case that reawakens the whole debate around assisted suicide, and the legal morass surrounding end of life issues. There are strong feelings on both sides, and must be seen in context of morality and ethics.

Morality is broadly defined as a set of rules by which a society agrees to live. Moral statements are unequivocal: so ‘to kill is wrong’, ‘to steal is wrong’, ‘to do good is right’. All societies rightly have examples of these absolutes by which much behaviour is governed. Ethics is a related but different notion. Here, rules of morality are applied in practice. Ethical questions are often based on whether or not a moral rule can be challenged. Euthanasia is a prime example. All people agree – and I’m sure Bridget Gilderdale does – that to kill is wrong. The ethical question here is: but in this case can killing be justified? Responses are likely fall in two camps – those who believe moral principles should NEVER be broken (so-called deontologists – often, though not exclusively founded on a religious belief), and those who believe that if the end justifies the means then in this case it can (so-called teleologists). Of course, working out if an end does justify the means is tricky – sometimes obvious (to end extreme individual suffering, as in this case), and sometimes less so (some wars).

Debates around ending life revolve around these questions, especially euthanasia and abortion. Interestingly, the views we hear are not necessarily from a grounded belief in the sanctity of life per se. Often, pro-choice campaigners (so, pro-abortion) argue against capital punishment. Similarly, those who are pro-capital punishment are often pro-life (so, against abortion). A cursory glance at the voting records of UK MPs for example, shows this tendency. I’d be interested to talk with people who are pro-choice, and pro-capital punishment (and vice-versa), but this would be a rare beast; these debates are often framed around ideas about when the beginning of life actually is, the need to protect the vulnerable weighed against the mother’s rights (in the case of abortion), and punishment and appropriate retribution for a wrong-doer (for capital punishment).

The UK media today shouts a telling quote from the Judge overseeing the Gilderdale case: “why did this case come to court?”. Well, in one sense of course it had to. Legalised assisted suicide is many years away, and even in countries more overtly pro-assisted suicide, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, it falls within a complex web of regulations based on the premiss that it is still technically unlawful. So, I suspect even Bridget Gilderdale would have been surprised if the admission of assisting her daughter’s suicide had gone unchallenged in a UK court. Ending a person’s life, even if they ask, and even if it ultimately ends suffering, has to be judged within the law.

But here, we see the law actually making a good decision! Taking into account context, the wishes of Lynne Gilderdale, and the acknowledgment that Bridget had her daughter’s well-being very much in mind (and we mustn’t forget her mental anguish as she pressed the syringe plunger). Good grief – even the Police Officer in charge of the case is sensitive (see his statement at the end of the report).

Discussions will no doubt continue, and some may worry that this is the thin end of an ethical wedge, but for the majority of rational people this case brings into the public domain a subject that requires careful consideration and discussion, outside the relative safety offered by absolutism. There lies fundamentalism – the nemesis of all civilised societies.