Farrukh Dhondy | ‘Assisted Dying’; Abortion May Be Easier in UK: Why I’m Against This…
Some, epic and modern, write about death. Dylan Thomas says “rage, rage against the dying of the light”. Was that futile protesting against inevitability?
All writers, even the cartoonists and sci-fi wallahs, write about life. Some, epic and modern, write about death. Dylan Thomas says “rage, rage against the dying of the light”. Was that futile protesting against inevitability? Yes, there are last testaments and scenes of passing in all literatures. And yes, I’ve been witness to a few final days, though not moments of these. I saw Sir Vidia Naipaul a day or perhaps two before he passed away in hospital. We talked, not about death but poems -- Wordsworth. I wasn’t present during his final moments but his dear friend Geordie Grieg was and, I was told, read him Crossing the Bar by Tennyson, which ends: “For tho’ from out our borne of Time and Place/ The flood may bear me far,/ I hope to see my Pilot face to face/ When I have crost the bar.” I knew that Vidia didn’t believe in a pilot or such a confrontation. We had discussed the Bhagavad Gita’s contention that the atma dissolves finally in the ocean of Brahman, the universal soul integrated into the eternal waters… Hey, good thinking Shankara! Or my other friend Dara Cama, who converted to Christianity, became Father Francis, a Catholic priest, worked for decades as a missionary, contracted incurable tongue cancer and spent his last days in a Catholic hospice in rural Gloucestershire. I visited him the day before he died and after the priest in charge said he was depressed, entered his tiny room. Dara/Francis couldn’t speak and had a slate and chalk to communicate. He scribbled he was happy to see me and wrote: “Isn’t this a beautiful place to spend my last days?” I said: “Forget the beauty of the place, where’s the secret passage to the nunnery?” He laughed and scribbled: “You’ll never change!” At least it cheered him up. I recall all this, gentle reader, because the UK Parliament has passed two new laws involving actions leading to death. Both were private member’s bills -- not part of the legislative programme of either the government or the Opposition. They were introduced by individual MPs and members were free to vote for or against or to abstain as their conscience dictated.
The first of these bills was the one which introduced to England and Wales the right to “assisted dying”. This in recognition of the universal truth that the living die, and that death should be dignified and put an end to the suffering of people who are certified as being terminally ill. The bill allows, after two independent medical certifications of imminent death owing to conditions such as cancer or any other; a clear statement by the “patient” of the will to end his or her life and some measures to ensure that no coercion is involved, for a doctor to hand the patient a drug to self- administer and die. The law legalises assisted suicide. Opponents of the bill, including doctors in and out of Parliament, palliative care staff and lay commentators insisted, during the nationwide debate, that there can be no hundred-per-cent guarantee that some form of coercion or indeed suggestive “brain-washing” had not taken place. The proponents of the bill stressed the aspect of dignity and the final freedom to obliterate unbearable pain and suffering. So, let’s say I was a member of the Westminster Parliament. How would I vote? Tres difficile mes ami!!! I… um… er… while completely understanding the argument for choice of the moment and dignity in getting away from suffering and having evidence-based doubts about effective pain-relief and palliative care, I would… abstain! Why? Because I have encountered, in my short and happy life, at least one set of relatives who may have prevailed (they didn’t, but seemed inclined to do) on a very ill and rich relative to end his existence and leave them an inheritance sooner rather than later. I have also encountered the most loving and caring sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, etc, who have spent years caring for a difficult and terminally ill relative. I imagine, without proof, that their exasperation could, now it’s legal, induce them, even subconsciously, to influence the relative to end it all and relieve them of their onerous duty of care!
The second bill, again a matter of terminating life, is to do with abortion. The bill, dedicated to a woman’s right to choose, extends the period of pregnancy during which an abortion is legal. So, a foetus in the womb could be close to being born when it would be legal to abort and kill it. Gentle readers, I certainly understand and support “women’s right to choose”. And yes, they could have chosen not having intercourse on that occasion; being on the birth-control pill; taking a morning-after pill; using the available abortion laws to end an early pregnancy… Choices that I’d support.! But isn’t it a fact that after a period (I’m not qualified to say how long) the foetus is a complete human being with developed heart and brain and, some say, even teeth? And doesn’t allowing abortion at that stage and beyond amount to murder? Against? Yes! Life versus ideological indulgence?