California will be initiating its Physician Assisted Suicide Law on Jan 1, 2016. While I had been a strong supporter for this over the years, when I heard this discussed on the radio yesterday it made me realize that it is more profound than just the letter of the law. Laws are both influenced by, and in turn, influence social norms -- the undefined values of a culture that are really more powerful than statutes.
Coincidentally, on this very day a group sponsored by the local MiraCosta College called “LIFE,” (Learning is for Everyone) mostly made up of retirees was to show a film titled in the original Italian “Miele” translated as “Honey.” There is more irony, in that the DVD stopped working after half of the film, and ended at a crucial point in this dramatization.
It tells the story of Irene (played by Jasmine Trinca) — who uses the pseudonym Honey since assisting suicide is a serious crime in Italy, who has dedicated herself to helping people who are suffering by assisting them in ending their lives. She tries to find ways to make their final moments less painful because she believes it is the right thing to do. When she finds out that a middle-aged man named Grimaldi (played by Carlo Cecchi), is in perfect health, she confronts him, demanding they cancel the arraignment and had thrown down his payment and was scouring his house to find the poison -— when the movie stopped, (and even after several attempts at resuscitating the DVD, it could not be saved.)
The hundred or so older people (like myself) when they realized it was not to continue, slowly walked out of the theater.
In some odd way the cutting short of the film, before we know how it ends, reflects what death is, — an ending that for many is not like the perfect film “fade out” — slowly, painlessly, with a sense of completion, but something different --abruptly in the middle of what is occurring, the person remembering how it started, and maybe his/her own contribution with the realization that the ending will never be known.
Next month in the state of California, one can approach a physician who can legally consider and discuss whether to encourage a patient to end their own life. In some ways it has also “given permission” to those millions who at some time have had at least a fleeting question about whether their own life was worth continuing. The law, of course, has specific medical criteria for implementing the assisted suicide, but nothing can stop the enacting of this law from evoking more extended thoughts among those whose existence constitutes physical or emotional pain. “Why should only those facing imminent death have this right, when others who face long years of suffering do not have access to such release.”
The passing of this law, and the shortened film that resonated to the radio discussion of it, has provided a personal epiphany. I wrote an article that was posted on the Oregon Death with dignity website that challenged the minority dissent in Gonzalez v. Oregon, written by Justice Scalia where he wrote, “surely an FDA approved pharmaceutical can not be for the purpose of ending a life.” A man of his classical erudition should have recognized the pure example of “begging the question” that his statement represented. He used such circular reasoning to leave unstated the theological roots of his argument.
I happened to have had a long interview (on Youtube) with a man who came very close to starving himself to death as a protest over killing whales here in San Diego. It turns out under the law the police can enter his apartment, but must leave when he tells them to; so only when he was in a coma could they take him to a hospital to prevent his death. I hear from him occasionally, and he seems to be generally doing well, taking up causes that provide meaning to his life that he came within hours to let expire.
I also know a man who was among those who stormed the beach of Iwo Jima seventy years ago. Lenny was like the older brother to the other young marines, (who as an aside gave the most powerful expression of opposition in 2003 when I brought up our impending invasion of Iraq,) “Oh, no, nothing could be worse than war!.” and I could see the agonizing image of that time of carnage so long ago in his eyes. He also described saving the life of a man who was grievously injured in that battle, so much so that he felt pangs of guilt over not letting him die. He told me how he later looked him up, and to his pleasure found that he was married, had children and was living a full life.
So, now having been a small part of winning the battle to facilitate the right to suicide, I’m able to understand those who oppose this. Although a non-believer, I can understand why all religions condemn taking one’s own life, as it negates their narrative that life never ends, that the story continues in a different setting but this time without the travails of mortal existence. Scalia deeply believes in this moral proscription of his Church, even though in practice this has been relaxed, as I found out speaking to the priest who presided over a mass where this issue came up.
Ironically, the passage of this law that is a victory for atheists, allows this atheist to more fully appreciate the values of my believing friends. I can also better understand, if not accept, how such a belief in the reality of an afterlife can be perverted, to the point where nothing done in this sphere is important compared to adhering to the designs of a higher being who will never condone a self administered abrupt ending. Winning this battle has the perverse effect of generating empathy for their position now that the danger of imposing on others has ended.
------------------—
Addendum:
Link to a provocative article on this subject, How California could dramatically change assisted suicide debate
Various Religion’s view on assisted suicide and end of life treatment from Pew Research Org. Other than Unitarian-Universalist, which supports Medical Assisted Suicide Laws, there is a common thread that an individual’s life belongs to God, so that taking any life, even one’s own, is prohibited. There are different views on exceptions and withdrawal of treatment when death is near.
“The Death Treatment.” is a long article from The New Yorker that looks at Belgium’s secular and expansive assisted suicide law. It goes beyond simplistic soundbites either for or against to delve into some profound unanticipated consequences.
