Should Assisted Suicide Be Broadcast Live on TV?
One has to wonder if in fact the member of parliament, Phil Willis, was not representing his constituent and merely attempting to get himself some attention during Prime Minister’s Question Time. He obviously believed that those who support assisted suicide in his constituency are in the minority and one suffering man could easily be thrown under a bus for his political career.
The MP asked whether the broadcast of the suicide was “in the public interest or is it simply distasteful voyeurism?” It was obvious from this question that he had not seen the program, as it has not been broadcast, nor seen his constituent’s appeal.
Sky defended its decision to broadcast the documentary by saying:
The question of a person’s right to die at a time of their choosing is an issue that arouses strong views on both sides. As a broadcaster, we believe that there is a role for television to inform public debate about even the most challenging subjects.
It is no longer a crime in Britain to actually commit suicide. Prosecuting a dead person seems to be seen as rather unreasonable, not to mention rather difficult, although such trials have occurred in the country’s past. The problem boils down to the law which threatens those who help facilitate the act with punishment of up to 14 years in prison.
However, according to an article in the Independent, just “ a handful have been arrested, and no relative or friend of the more than 100 UK citizens who have gone abroad to Dignitas clinic has been prosecuted under the 1961 Suicide Act.”
The issue has gained additional attention in the UK after Margo MacDonald, a member of the Scottish Parliament, known as an MSP, highlighted the issue due to her own chronic and terminal Parkinson’s disease. She is attempting to make assisted suicide legal in Scotland. This would be a challenge, as the Scots, both Kirk and Church of Scotland, are far more religious than their English counterparts.
No politician, barring a very few, seems to want to get near this issue for fear of offending their more religious constituents. This is despite the fact that Britain can be seen for the most part as a mostly secular country.
As a result, the growing trend has been for sufferers to bypass parliament and go directly to the High Court to force action on the issue. The documentary to be shown on television is merely a stepping up of the campaign to aim directly for the sympathy of the public on this most difficult of subjects.
The subject of “death with dignity” has reared its head again in the British consciousness. It looks doubtful any change will come about in the law — yet one wonders how long politicians will be able to turn a blind eye to the subject. Death is, after all, an issue that affects every single citizen of their country.
This is horrible!!!! Suicide is murder of one’s self. Common sense and at least minimal background in Christianity’s 10 Commandments gives us the answer: THOU SHALT NOT KILL! Suicide is killing of one’s self. Furthermore, to be televised while committing such a crime, is to be an exhabitionalist, while one cruel enough to watch is mentally sick! If someone is stupid enough to kill him/herself, don’t drag others into your selfishness and self-pity.
There is a case for assisted suicide being illegal, but compassion shown in the sentencing. As now, in fact.
I’d hate to go the way of the Dutch and the Swiss. So very … er … clinical.
Ouch “stupid enough” just a bit judgemental eh? You go through the pain of nasty disease and then see how high and mighty you are.
If you do not have sovereignty over yourself you have no freedom. You are basically saying that he has to suffer horrible pain because his ending his life offends you.
Oh yes and the 10 Commandments aren’t “Christian” per se and existed a long time before Christianity began.
Andrew, what’s ironic is that legal euthanasia erodes autonomy, it doesn’t enhance it. The Remmelink report on dutch euthanasia showed the majority of euthansia committed was involuntary and doctor initiated, not patient.
There are also some cases of it being done for quality of life reasons that could easily be addressed by treatment.
Also, some patients cite things like “being a burden” or psychiatric reasons not related to crippling pain or catastrophic loss of body functions. Even when consent is given, it may be caused by mental duress and not a clear rational understanding of the risks and benefits of treatment.
To argue that it enhances autonomy is not being honest to the serious problems euthanasia can cause. It’s also dishonest to frame objections solely as religious arguments, because that is often an attempt to try and disqualify them a priori.
Dave D. Did you perchance watch the piece by the guy himself that I have linked to in the piece. It makes for interesting viewing.
Why should one follow an unjust law?
I like how Liberalism is making the murder of the sick, elderly, defenseless and even the unborn into an act of compassion. In their world view the best way to deal with poverty, sickness and the unwanted is to justify their murder under the pretext of “compassion”.
People should be able to chose the time of their death,whether sick or well,without interference by the state. Those who do not wish to die should not be coerced to do so but should not be left alive to suffer horrible lingering deaths because they are no longer able to communicate. In America, particularly, we undermedicate those who are suffering,in order to keep them alive even when they have expressed a clear wish to terminate life under such circumstances.
Let those who have never experienced such pain themselves or watched a loved one die marinate in their own self righteousness. But we should not let them interfere with those who are actually facing these heartbreaking situations and have a different view.
BCT: who has called for that? You didn’t watch the video did you? You also miss the premise of the piece which questions whether or not showing the actual act in a documentary is a good idea in the debate. I am not sure one way or other if it is or not…hence the piece.
I do however believe “living wills” and the right to die in such cases is paramount. It is a matter that has been in my mind for several years not because of anyone else but because of my own serious medical situation (that has since passed thankfully). The experiences of the last 2 years of my life have made me even more certain of the value of a “living will”.
Should Assisted Suicide Be Broadcast Live on TV?
NO it’s just non respectuous for the person that is dying, and an attempt to shok one’s sensibility ; The TV nowadays have no limits in the trash.
If the person think that his/her life is non-bearable anymore, because of pains, it’s his/her own business to decide to stop them.
This is a world of difference between televised suicide as exploitation and televised suicide in a journalistic context. This program was obviously not filmed to appeal to merely prurient interests. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. But don’t impede on my right to free speech.
I don’t think its that horrible. But I do think its stupid that someone needs to have someone else help they commit suicide. I mean, C’mon, if you can’t even kill yourself without someone else than you really are worthless.
The title of this post is “Should Assisted Suicide Be Broadcast Live on TV?”; only two out of the 12 comments so far answered that. I’ll say “Yes”, as long as executions & abortions are broadcast, too. And uncensored footage from Iraq & Afghanistan. Let’s see those kids die in real time. It’s all journalism, right ?
Broadcast suicides on TV? Why not? Those who don’t like it can change the channel. We already show most of people’s lives on TV thanks to all the reality shows. Might as well show the final piece we all have to face sooner or later.
As for suicide itself…I’m always amused how people are willing to decide what *others* may do for their lives. They’ve never had to face someone who’s drinking morphine like water as it fails to stop the pain. They’ve never seen someone in the final stages of a painful, drawn out death praying for release but don’t get it thanks to modern medicine and righteous indignation. May those of you who are willing to tell other people what they may or may not do with their own life suffer a long, drawn out death with no respite, peace, or dignity you commit so many others to every day.
Well the person involved wanted it to be broadcast as part of the documentary. I am just interested to know if it actually as advanced or hurt the debate that needs to take place about the subject.
TP: Yes I agree with your sentiments on the subject. I find that younger adults who have never had a relative or friend die that is close to them of a prolonged illness tend to be the most self-righteous and sure of themselves.
andrew, yes i watched it. It doesn’t change much for me though, because I already understood the arguments pro or con. As for displaying it, it honestly can’t be worse than watching saw IV. This is shown not to be gratuitous, but to make a point.
I’d say to him if i were his brother that it’s in no means suffering to me to have you alive. That i’d do whatever is needed or whatever it takes so that you can have the best life possible. If anything, we should enable more and better hospice care and less financial burden arising from such.
It may seem heartless, but in addition to the personal side, we have to consider the political ramifications of the act as well. It’s possible to have the best motives in passing legislation only for it to turn into something corrosive.
Taking political ramifications into consideration is not heartless but realistic. It never ceases to amaze me, and is probably why I am a libertarian, how badly abused laws are by certain parties.
An abuser of laws that springs to mind is the RIAA. Their actions are so bad a leading constitutional scholar has declared their misuse of the law unconstitutional.
Yes, suicide should be broadcast…as should the execution of convicted criminals…and as should combat. Most people have never seen real violence…they’ve seen movies, TV shows, docu-dramas, even file footage of Nazi death camps & the Killing Fields…but none of it seems real…Generally speaking, the blood is fake and the actors get up and walk away when the director calls ‘cut’!
Seeing real death may have the effect of sobering the blood-thirsty and foolish among us.
TVs have tuners. If a person doesn’t want to watch s/he may change the channel, but all adults should see the death of another before allowing anger, hate & rage to color their world view. One caveat: when combat is televised don’t expect to see many Americans die…our troops are good at what they do: they’re merciless and without pity in combat…effective and efficient; but true humanitarians to their vanquished foes. Captured enemies are treated fairly — if not gently; enemy wounded receive the same care our wounded receive; and the basics of life support are promptly provided — food, water, shelter and protection…There is a lesson there for us all. Life is always hard, sometimes brutal…but even in the worst of times, being humane is what makes us human.
CY: Agree with you on all points.
The broadcasting of the event doesn’t make it any more real (except in perceptions). The broadcasting is not a problem in and of itself. Another example: the broadcasting of pornography is a problem secondary to the filming of pornography and the abuse that occured during production. We are not required to experience or directly deal with all forms of crap in life, but we are perhaps wise to not spend a lot of energy trying to act like it doesn’t happen.
I’m afraid (being a conservative Christian myself) that much of the anger at the broadcast is driven by the fear of being forced to face what suicidal individuals are choosing. Nobody’s being forced to watch it.
I apply these principles to my own tv-watching and, as a result, watching less than 7-8 hours a week. Nothing there I want to see.
Far be it for me to want to be crass, but is Craig Ewert the only person on the face of the earth with what is afflicting him? What about others who have not given up, like he has.
Take a look at the differences and learn.
How far would medicine have progressed if all of the people dying with cancer over the past fifty years had decided to end their lives. Don’t we owe dying to those who come after us, in the same way those who died before us contributed greatly to cures? You didn’t really think all medicine for disease came from tiny little animals running around in a cage.
Why not? This is the nation that made eminem a millionaire,considers Obama profound,gave us jerry springer,and will buy/sell anything.Hey!I got a concept that will be an instant hit with feminazis, how about televising late-term abortions?
This sort of knowing self-righteousness is what makes this debate so difficult. How judgemental can you possible be? DVL has similar methods.
This is about choice for the individual.
Mike as a former cancer patient (last year) and trial guinea-pig I can tell you making people in terminal painful shape live in such a state to serve as test-beds for future cancer sufferers is cruel. I was glad to help, however people should not be forced to do so against their will.
There is a very fascistic view from some about the dying. Because of religious conviction you feel that you are willing to use the force of government to make some live through pain and suffering at the end of their life. And yet you claim to be doing it from a position of compassion?
The Green Party has taken this on politically – it supports a law for voluntary euthanasia with all of the usual safeguards. Yes it is considered “brave” because of all of the religious fuss – but actually, is only in line with general public opinion (which surveys generally show run 75%-plus in favour.)