“To be or not to be, that is the question.”
A famous line from Hamlet, in which Shakespeare’s protagonist contemplated his own existence, his own fate. Should he live or should he take his own life? It was his decision to make, no one else's, and in the end he chose to live, though his fate would still be the same.
Ophelia's struggle with hopelessness was different, for, in that same play she did take her own life. Hamlet is a timeless story about despair in its many guises. And, in the end, it is a tragedy.
This is how many of us look upon the issue of suicide, as voyeurs, looking in on the lives of others, passing judgments on their final choice to take their own lives, never truly being able to empathize with that decision, lamenting it as a tragedy. We see Ophelia as foolish for taking such drastic measures over unrequited love. Hamlet we see as strong for overcoming his despair, never truly acknowledging that he goes on to commit several murders and causes greater harm to a kingdom. Yet, this is what we applaud. And therein, again, one finds a tragedy, for we are too quick to convict and condemn others by our values without ever looking at a greater picture.
Such was the case with last week’s commentary on assisted suicides, which condemned them as murder, maintaining the stigma and the draconian subjection of individuals to the will of society’s evangelical, bygone values. Like it or not, Canada is a secularist society and because of this it is time to revisit some of our interpretations of those values. It is time that we open up discussions on the matter of assisted suicides.
In these circumstances, these are individuals whose lives are coming to a painful end, and it is their choice to terminate their own lives. Unfortunately, their bodies ravaged by their illnesses, they are no longer able to physically do this themselves and they need assistance. Therein lies the dilemma, for if a friend or family member shows compassion and helps them, they have committed murder. If they do nothing, the person suffers, and for what reason? That is, in itself, an act of cruelty and inhumanity, a transgression on the sanctity of life by causing harm to another.
Modern medical personnel, of course, argue for the prolongation of life, usually offering false hopes that a cure can be found in time. In truth, however, the patient’s quality of life has long since past. They now just exist, dazed and stupefied by the amount of medication needed to alleviate the pain of “living,” but not being able to stop it. In the end, the medical system benefits, but no one else does.
One cannot deny that if we were to impose death upon another, it could be tantamount to murder. The courts have even quashed the religious convictions of parents who have refused medical treatment for a dying child. However, if there is informed consent, as with a living will, an advanced health-care directive, a doctor is not held liable for failing to offer medical assistance to one who does not want it.
In the case of assisted suicide, individuals are asking for help to make that final decision about their lives, choosing to face death on their terms, and what greater gift can there be but giving someone dignity?
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
