Broadcasting Death

A programme about assisted suicide - and a predictable howl of outrage from those who oppose assisted suicide and lack the empathy to understand why others might want to take their own life. The Guardian has some gems:

Dr Peter Saunders, a director of the Care Not Killing alliance, branded the film "macabre death voyeurism". He said: "This is taking us a little further down the slippery slope. It seems there is a macabre fascination in this death tourism.

"It's creating the impression that there is a huge demand for this. There isn't. There are only a very few people going over to use this service but an inordinate amount of media coverage. It's all part of a calculated campaign to get the issue back before parliament."

"Death tourism" is a wonderfully misleading phrase. I can just imagine the scene - "Darling, shall we go to Spain this year?" "No, my love, let's head off to Switzerland so I can kill myself". Saunders' language completely denigrates the impossibly difficult decision those who take their own lives have to make. As does the phrase "a huge demand for this." This isn't a commodity, this isn't buying a car or a new pair of pants. This is about people having to make the awful choice as to whether their quality of life moving forward actually warrants continuing to live. Of course there isn't a high fucking demand for this. It is a service for those who have no other choice.

And maybe this is part of a campaign to get the issue back in front of Parliament. But the whole point of Parliament is to debate issues that affect the citizens of this country. And if Saunders is so convinced by his argument, he should have no problem in defending his views in the House of Commons.

Moving onto our second complainer:

Dominica Roberts, of the Pro-Life Alliance, said the programme sent out the message that some people's lives are "worthless", adding: "It is both sad and dangerous to show this kind of thing on the television."

I don't think this is sending out a message that some people's lives are worthless. Rather, I think it shows that sometimes life is not worth living. Take this comment from the documentary's subject:

Before his death, Mr Ewert said: "I'd like to continue. "The thing is that I really can't. When you are completely paralysed, can't talk, can't walk, can't move your eyes, how do you let someone know that you are suffering?"

So yes, it is sad that Mr Ewert felt he had to die; but I'd argue that it is also understandable. But I don't think this is dangerous. What is Roberts expecting? A sudden surge of people heading to Switzerland to commit suicide because it suddenly becomes cool?

But I suppose a lot of the problem is down to the fact that this is being shown on TV. In order to deal with that I'll refer you to this comment:

The veteran documentary maker Roger Graef, who has made more than 80 films, said: ""If someone has allowed the filming to happen I don't see a problem with that. We don't have to watch it. We know it's a film about euthanasia. I think it informs the debate."

Quite. This film adds to the debate around this heartbreaking subject, and both sides of the argument need to be made and understood. And if you don't want to watch it, then turn off the TV.