Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Crippen looks at history in respect of the Assisted Suicide debate

1 February 2010

Unsurprisingly Assisted Suicide is still in the news with another ruling that let a mother who aided her daughter to end her life, walk away from a murder charge. Why the daughter who had ME was 'bed ridden' for over 17 years, was just one of the issues that wasn't addressed during the recent court appearance.

The author Terry Pratchett, who was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's has also come forward to advocate changes in the law that will make assisted suicide legal. He has also
recommended the setting up of tribunals to decide who should 'qualify' for this method of ending their life.

For many Disabled people, the ease with which public opinion and now the law is sliding towards a society in which assisted suicide is the norm has serious implications with regard to our standing as viable members of the community. It was only seventy years ago that Germany passed similiar laws which resulted in the T4 programme and the extermination of hundreds of thousands of disabled people.

What next, we ask? Laws for the forced sterilization of disabled people similiar to that which were implimented in the United States. Between 1907 and 1939. More than 30,000 people in twenty-nine states were sterilized, many of them unknowingly or against their will, while they were incarcerated in prisons or institutions for the mentally ill.

"But you're taking this out of all proportion" is the response that we are used to hearing when addressing these issues. Try telling that to the 275,000 disabled people who were killed quite 'legally' in Germany during the 1940's.

Our mate George has also started a debate on the subject. Click here to join in.


Crippen's Blog
Disability Arts Online

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

My life is unbearable - don't fix it, just kill me

This article was commissioned and first published by Heresy Corner.
To see the original, please go here.

Care staff had to help me out of bed this morning. It happens increasingly often these days, as my incurable disease and my unfit body's slow ageing makes its mark. Some mornings, being lifted hurts so much I cry. It's only a matter of time before I end up wet in bed and need a commode and then a nappy. I regularly tip coffee down myself in the mornings because I can't hold a mug, and I still can't type properly because it takes two hours for my hands to warm up. I am only 36.

I'm pretty lucky actually. I am reminded almost every year by a social care manager that if I was childless I wouldn't qualify for care at all - in which case I'd be lying here alone with a bladder full to bursting, paralysed by pain and stiffness. Instead of writing and drinking coffee, I'd be trying to work out how to make it to the toilet before I wee. My life, what there was of it, would be pretty unbearable.

Nobody wants me to suffer. I don't want to suffer. My friends and colleagues don't want me to suffer. Neither do my doctors, my care manager, either of my beautiful girlfriends, or my three wonderful kids. If I died tomorrow, it would indeed end my suffering. If I said I wanted to commit suicide when it all gets too much, many people would support me and think the state should do it for me. If I said I wanted to die, would you rage at the state for not offering me a final solution?

It seems acceptable these days to suggest that being ('kept') alive is a kind of abuse. Polly Toynbee, for example, calls the 1961 Suicide Act - whose guidelines are now being re-written in the light of Debbie Purdy's case - "an instrument of state torture". She notes that "every poll in the last decade has shown between 74% and 87% of the public want the terminally ill to have the right to ask a doctor for a peaceful death."

The majority of the public are not disabled and not sick, so they have no direct knowledge of the subject. Their opinions are based on such things as prejudice fed by the media and government, witnessing the neglect of people they know or fearful fantasies about their own potential suffering. Many support the idea of death clinics because they believe that most severely sick and disabled people want to end their lives, and just couldn't do it themselves. In that case, why don't more of them simply direct their electric wheelchairs into the nearest river?

If a healthy, non-disabled friend told you that their life was unbearable, and asked you to kill them, and they were really serious, would you help them to find a way to die? Or, would you ask them why and offer them support? Would you maybe suggest solutions to the problems causing their misery? Would you send them to the doctor? Faced with a suicidal patient who is physically healthy, a doctor will most likely offer antidepressants; if your friend is lucky they may even get therapy to help them look into how they could feel better and what could improve their life.

The help offered to people with such feelings is often inadequate - patients who have slashed their arms in miserable failed suicide attempts are sometimes patched up and sent home from casualty with no further support. But however strapped for cash the health service is one thing they won't do is offer to finish the job off properly. There's a reason for that - our healthcare system is here to save lives, to treat and cure. The Hippocratic Oath states that quite clearly. Thanks to doctors' traditional ethics - and their knowledge of the real issues people face - we currently don't have a healthcare system that aids and abets suicide. Thank goodness!

Suicidal tendencies are not exclusive to disabled or sick people. Lots of people who have lives filled with struggle or abuse, people who feel their lives are worthless, or who are having a miserable life, feel they want to end it all. But in the general population suicide attempts are seen as a cry for help, whose solution is to offer people help to live. Only people with physical health problems or impairment are ever seen as being mentally competent when they want to kill themselves.

So why do politicians and campaigners propose suicide clinics exclusively for us? My friend Liz Crow, a filmmaker, artist and disabled activist, recently graced Anthony Gormley's Fourth Plinth in full Nazi regalia to point out the similarity between today's discussions and the eugenics promoted by the Third Reich. She comments in the film "Protest on the plinth"



They put across the idea of disabled people as suffering and deserving of mercy killing, in other words they're doing us a favour, by putting us out of our misery. Or where that doesn't work, they put us across as an economic burden and therefore it's in the interests of families and our nation and so on, to kill us. Three hundred and fourty thousand people live in institutions in the UK. Underlying all of that is still the same set of values, about us as other, and lesser.


Despite the slow march towards equal rights for disabled people and people with long term illnesses, the government would prefer to ration healthcare, while social services are underfunded to the point that they now refuse support to anyone not in serious crisis. Meanwhile, the media are running ahead, misleading the public that disabled people's lives are terrible. They rarely consider the reasons, other than our impairments, why we might be having such a bad time. Social isolation, abuse, lack of equipment, being dumped in institutions, lack of opportunity, poor healthcare, insufficient support, and inaccessible housing all contribute to making people feel their lives are not worth living.

Many disabled and sick people fight every day for the right services to improve their lives. Many are isolated, locked away, or go without vital things they need - much of our suffering is not just related to our state of health. It's easy for the newly disabled to feel intimidated and undervalue what difference support makes, and maybe it's just easier to die than trying it out while they are still struggling with the trauma of a changing body, but I believe everyone deserves a chance at living before taking the permanent way out.


Clair and fellow activists protesting outside the House of Lords


The public has an image of us as pathetic victims of charity, tragic but brave, lazy workshy scroungers, a drain on the state, burdened with a fate worse than death, fit for abortion, even subhuman. People are so terrified of becoming one of us that some of them want to book in their suicides now. You think I'm exaggerating? Someone came up to me recently when I was out in my wheelchair said "I'd kill myself, if I was like you". (It wasn't the first time. My response these days is "I pity you, coward".)

I believe the root of public opinion is fear of suffering - and I agree that nobody wants to suffer. So why are we not looking for solutions which do not involve people having to die? The concept of liberating people from suffering by offering them fatal medications is more like an idea for a horror movie than a social policy.

It may help the public to swallow this idea, now that as a population we have quietly taken up the state's unique offer to investigate all pregnant women to identify and terminate unborn children with 'defects' any time until birth, even in cases when those infants could survive unaided. Parents have morally accepted that disabled lives are not worth living, and are voting with their feet, or rather, the live contents of their wombs. It is seen as the socially responsible thing to do, even that parents are the cause of our family's suffering if they do not take this morbid way out. I think it is utterly shameful that people feel this is their only option. Parents deserve a real choice, which includes the choice to have their disabled child welcomed and included.

The philosopher Peter Singer goes further: he puts forward the argument that it should be ok to kill disabled infants after birth if it's for the greater good. And he's got a point. If we accept the above program, what's the difference? Other people are starting to wonder if it is acceptable to use the same ideas later in life, to effectively "liberate" people from torturous existences by ending their lives.

Disabled adults are volunteering to die, in many cases because it's easier for everyone concerned than living. According to the US anti assisted suicide organisation Not Dead Yet say, the primary reason for people wanting to die is the feeling of being a burden. Polly Toynbee seems to agree: "Besides, the loss of independence and becoming a burden to others may be a valid part of the reason why someone feels life has become undignified and past bearing."

Liz Crow told me,



"I saw a film about the Dutch euthanasia system, which is held up as a carefully regulated system. A man I have never forgotten had his suicide approved by three doctors. It struck me that the one of the last things he said was "I don't want to be a burden to my wife." I felt like nobody could hear what he was saying. He wasn't saying he wanted to die, he was saying he didn't want to be a burden, and dying is not the only way to achieve that. I felt desolate because if that was the shallowness of their understanding, then where do we begin?"


Absolutely it is natural that this makes people feel awful - but I want independence and dignity in life, not to be given drugs to kill myself! Similarly, I feel angry that families do not automatically get the support that would prevent anyone becoming a burden. We certainly have the capacity to do this, if government chose to release the funding.

Polly Toynbee herself, quoting the National Council for Palliative Care admits that "the least affluent get the least care." It seems a shame that in the face of this evidence she concludes that assisted suicide clinics are the answer. But I suppose that's not entirely surprising for someone who once wrote that "the right to life is not an absolute. It is inextricably and untidily linked in almost every case with social and psychological considerations, as well as the money that might have bought more health and happiness elsewhere."

Let's get the "death with dignity" myth smashed once and for all. No one gets dignity in death. Being dead simply cannot give the dead person more dignity, still less a better quality of life - so suicide cannot be the answer to the question of how people's dignity and quality of life is improved.

Whilst it is true that death would ease my suffering, it would also end my life, leave my children motherless and homeless, break my lovers' hearts and end my usefulness to society. I don't want to die, I have already faced that possibility once and the value of every day of my life is immense. The benefits of living outweigh the consequences of my death a hundredfold - what price a mother? It's not a tough decision.

One day, I will die, like all other humans, and if I wanted to die at my own hands in this country I have already have a right to commit suicide. If I want to take advantage of that one day, I will, and in almost all situations of possible illness there are ways to do it - as long as I continue to have independent living - the healthcare, support, equipment, housing and access I need to life and the living.

My body is still deteriorating. But my independence is going to tangibly improve next week when I'll be drinking coffee from something resembling a baby's beaker in the mornings, so I don't have to have my care staff hold the cup and straw, or burn myself. I am also awaiting equipment so I can get up without human assistance and go to the toilet when I wake, on foot or using my wheelchair, depending what suits. All by myself.

These are just some simple examples of how the right support or equipment increases my ability to have a decent life, but I could list many more. These are the things that give me a shot at equality in life, the things which enable me to participate and have value as a human being in society.

Baroness Jane Campbell, a disabled activist we can thank for fighting the last assisted suicide bill ferociously in Lords, stated in the Guardian recently,



"Our underfunded and discretionary systems of health and social care, coupled with rampant discrimination, are having fatal consequences for disabled people. But, rather than tackle these issues head on - to choose life, in Irvine Welsh's now famous phrase - the warping effects of our discourse on disability have made death seem the only humane option."

I think our current working population ought to reject government and media fear-mongering, which lets the state off the hook, and ask the government for a better deal than death for their money, for those whose suicidal feelings are usually caused by neglect. I can't point you to accurate figures on this, as it's not in the interests of the state purse to study it. What I can tell you is, that in over a decade of experience of disability rights activism I have met hundreds of disabled people and people with serious illnesses, none of whom are privileged enough to be suffering from their illness or impairment alone.

For all those reading who still think we need suicide clinics, I ask you this. Are you happy to support the idea, knowing that one day someone might facilitate you or others to die, at least in part, due to external factors which could be changed? If not, then this is the time to secure all our futures by fighting against these clinics and deciding to fight for inclusion, independent living and assistance to live, not assistance to die.

Clair Lewis is part of the Disabled people's Direct Action Network

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Charlotte Raven: Should I take my own life?

When Charlotte Raven was diagnosed with Huntington's, an incurable degenerative disease, there seemed only one option: suicide. But would deciding how and when to die really give her back the control she desperately craved? And what about the consequences for her husband and young daughter?

In 2006, 18 months after the birth of my baby, I tested positive for Huntington's disease. The nurse who delivered the news hugged me consolingly and left me with my husband and a mug of sweet tea to cry. In the days that followed, I began to realise why so few of the people at risk of inheriting this ­incurable neurodegenerative ­disorder chose to find out.

This incuriosity had seemed to me irresponsible. Having discovered the previous year that my ­father had the disease, I had been offered a test that would tell me for certain if I, too, had i­nherited the gene. In the months of debate I'd had with my husband about whether to take the test, I'd always been on the side of enlightenment. I calculated that the trauma of finding out would be offset by the satisfaction of being able to make informed decisions about my life.

I thought taking the test would be like finding out the weather before you go on holiday. If the outlook was gloomy, at least I'd know what to pack. In reality, it was more like finding out there was a bomb on the plane when you were already airborne. I felt impotent and envious of the ­uninformed majority. I wished I didn't know.

Following the diagnosis, I read everything I could find about Huntington's disease. ­Neurological p­sychologist Nancy Wexler – who had grown up with a mother suffering from HD and was therefore at risk herself – says Huntington's impacts on "­everything that makes us ­human". Wexler is ­careful not to sensationalise her ­portrayal of the disease, but this affliction still reads like something dreamed up by the evil ­genius in a Batman comic strip. The sympto­matology bore the infernal ­imprimatur of the Joker. What could be more testing than an illness that impairs quickly but takes decades to kill – or more cruel than one that robs you of your ability to communicate while leaving your capacity to understand intact?

The first visible sign of Huntington's disease is the chorea – jerky, uncontrollable, involuntary movements in all parts of the body. As parts of the brain degenerate, patients suffer severe ­cognitive problems: loss of memory, loss of ­judgment, loss of the capacity to organise oneself. Due to the loss of motor skills and the jerky, ­writhing contortions that afflict them, they find walking difficult and are prone to injury from falls. Patients lose the capacity to swallow and sometimes die of malnutrition. Their personality is often affected, too. Reports of aggressive, ­compulsive and sexually inappropriate behaviour are common. Towards the end, families often see no ­option but to have their suffering relatives ­institutionalised. There is currently no cure for Huntington's ­disease. Unsurprisingly, Huntington's patients ­often suffer from depression

At home with a toddler, the prospect of losing my newly discovered maternal feelings seemed particularly hard. The typical HD personality is ­demanding and unempathic – most unmaternal. I feared becoming an obstruction to be navigated round: a succubus draining life from the family host. I couldn't stand the thought of my daughter being scared of me. I pictured her dawdling at the top of the street on her way home from school, putting off the moment she would have to confront an irascible and unpredictable parent. I feared I might set fire to the house with her in it, like Woody Guthrie's HD-affected mother. Or ­parade in front of her schoolfriends in my underwear.

Having tested positive for HD, I was told it was inevitable that I would develop the disease at some point – but that it was not possible to know when. HD typically strikes in midlife. A fortunate few like my father suffer no symptoms until as late as their 60s, but for most it begins in their late 30s to mid-40s. I am 40 years old.

Frustratingly, some friends and family recast this certainty as a probability. "You might not get it," they would say, offering half-remembered quotes from articles about the neuroprotective benefits of fish oil. I began to feel like the only ­evolutionist in a room full of creationists. I understand why they do it. A hereditary illness for which there is no cure is a challenge to our sense of ­ourselves as self-­determining entities. Having ­invested so much in the fantasy that we are ­authors of our fate, we would rather credit ourselves with the power to generate miracles than accept the incontro­vertible evidence to the contrary.

The most up to date research on fish oil ­suggests that it does nothing to alleviate the symptoms or slow the disease's inexorable progress. Knowing this, my dad still takes 1,000mg a day.

My first suicidal thought was a kind of epiphany – like Batman figuring out his escape from the Joker's death trap. It seemed very "me" to choose death over self-delusion. Ah ha, I thought. For the first time since the diagnosis, I slept through the night.

I was shocked to read the figures for HD-related suicide. One in four people with the illness tries to kill themself. I was surprised it wasn't more. Rationally, you would have thought that everyone with the condition would realise the futility of continuing. Yet three-quarters of sufferers ­carried on. Why? Had they been duped by family members into believing they were not as far gone as they felt? Or were they falling for some ­misplaced belief in the sanctity of life? Their ­decision to cast the destruction of their ­identity and descent into madness as a challenge rather than a disaster seemed irrational, yet weirdly threatening.

I felt I had to argue them out of it. My mind clicked into gear, issuing bullet points to back up the case for self-destruction:

• If my cat had HD, I wouldn't make it carry on, but would get the vet to put it out of its misery.
• Without autonomy and the capacity for self-­determination, life is meaningless. Merely ­existing isn't enough.
• Dependency is degrading.
• Suffering is pointless. The religionists' belief that it is spiritually instructive, and therefore an essential part of life, is dangerous and reactionary.

When Nancy Wexler's mother attempted suicide, her father discovered her and saved her life. His daughter says he later felt that saving his wife's life had been a "terrible mistake". He'd acted out of instinct, and subsequently regretted not ­respecting her wishes. If he had, she might have been spared the miserable years that followed.

I feared my husband would do the same. His opposition to my arguments in favour of killing myself when the time came was instinctual rather than intellectual. He couldn't offer any supporting evidence for his sense that a suffering, angry and dependent wife was better than a dead one.

He was right about one thing, though. My belief that he wouldn't be able to bear watching me ­suffer was, he said, a projection. I couldn't bear watching me suffer. I had already found myself wondering every time I misplaced my keys or failed to locate my phone charger whether this was the beginning of my decline.

I wanted to set a date. The first stages of the ­disease are often characterised by denial. Sufferers can spend the early years ­convinced there is ­nothing wrong. I feared that by the time I became fully aware of how bad I had got, I would no longer be physically capable of ­enacting my own death. I ­decided a pre-emptive strike would be necessary.

I pictured a room in the Chelsea hotel and me, still young and unscathed by the muscular spasms that contort the faces of HD sufferers. I would still be capable of grasping and expressing the poig­nancy of my situation. My suicide note would be pitched at posterity. I would ­administer a fatal dose of heroin and that would be that. The idea of going during the pre-symptomatic period had a lot to r­ecommend it. I'd be able to "author" my death in the way I authored my wedding, ensuring that it was ­poetic and resonant. More importantly, I'd never be tempted to blog my descent into incoherence. Did the people journaling endlessly on all those HD websites never, I wondered, talk or think of anything else? Their devotion to their disease seemed drone-like, and I cleaved towards the pro-euthanasia lobby, sensing they were more my type.

Dominic Lawson has observed the right-to-die lobby comprises "powerful people" who are used to exerting control over their lives, and I ­suppose I thought of myself as one of them. I'd never had a normal job and found it hard to cope with people telling me what to do. My opinions were my own, developed without reference to God, convention or morality. I ­considered myself intellectually ­autonomous (as if such a thing were possible).

I identified heavily with the portrayal of PSP (progressive supranuclear palsy) sufferer Anne Turner in the BBC's well-intentioned drama A Short Stay In Switzerland, which tackled the ­increasingly fashionable theme of euthanasia. Confronted with her neurological malaise, Turner was steely and determined to enact the ­rationally arrived at decision to die: "You know what has to be done and you just do it."

Dynamic decision-makers such as Turner ­regard a loss of control over their lives as a fate worse than death. They perceive patient-hood as degrading. I perceived it as a form of oppression. HD seemed like the worst kind of corporate boss, defining my agenda and limiting my capacity for self-­expression. Resisting gave me a buzz I hadn't felt since my youth. I was fighting for my rights!

Having regained control over her life by her ­decision to die, Turner becomes calm. I felt the same sense of inner peace, convinced I would be doing the right thing for my family. The film's deathbed scene at Dignitas showed the family grieving healthily. Experiencing closure, you sense they will recover quickly – and so it proves.

According to Derek Humphry, author of a ­seminal 1991 euthanasia textbook , "The closure in a case of accelerated, date-fixed ­dying is more effective and poignant because ­everybody ­concerned knows in advance that the patient will be gone at a pre-ordained time." I wanted to give my family the same gift.

Humphry also promised better days ahead. With the matter settled, I'd be free to make the most of the time remaining. But only if I laid my plans carefully. Meticulous forward planning was necessary for "self-deliverance with certainty".

With this in mind, I began composing a letter to my daughter. The act would be impossible to account for when there was nothing observably wrong. At risk herself (she cannot choose to take the test to see if she has inherited the gene until she turns 18), she would be terrified about what was to come. Rather than rush, I realised I'd have to wait until midway through the illness. It was ­important to write now, while I was still making sense. I meant to explain, but found myself ­arguing, as I had to my husband, in the manner of a sixth-form debater. My attempts to win her round to my way of thinking sounded smooth and self-­justifying.

Rhetoric crept in as I did my utmost to convince her that she would be OK without me.

With the escape hatch well in view, I started ­functioning more normally. At my instigation, we went on a series of memorable family days out. A trip on an open-topped bus to the ­Science Museum had a stagey quality, like the life-­affirming montage in a film about someone with a terminal illness.

The next few weeks were spent adjudicating methods. Overdosing on heroin in the Chelsea hotel seemed hackneyed, on reflection.

The Dignitas route was expensive but effective. Three thousand pounds would buy three ­consultations and a lethal dose of the drug ­popularly considered to be the least physically and emotionally traumatic way to go. I guessed this was what ­Baroness Warnock and other ­proponents of ­assisted dying meant when they talked about "easeful death". In their accounts, ­suicide was a gorgeous Saturday morning lie-in, not a violent rupture.
The success rate was 100%, though it was clear that not everyone "went" at the same pace. The process took anything from 15 minutes to several hours to complete. I worried, as I had when giving birth, that something irritating in the attendant's manner might inhibit my natural processes. I wanted to vet them, but this wasn't possible – as with NHS midwives, you had to make do with whoever was on at the time.

I gave proper consideration to the DIY options. Their efficacy was harder to establish. Dr Philip Nitschke's handbook, a Which? of suicide ­methods, ranks methods numerically according to his Reliability & Peacefulness Test.

Top of the scale, at the time of writing, was a method devised by Nitschke himself in 2008. It sounded excellent, but potentially difficult for someone with HD. Midway through the illness, the chorea and lack of coordination would make anything requiring fine motor movements tricky to enact. There was one other problem. At the end, I wanted to look like myself, not like one of the diagrams in the book. I had the uneasy sense that following Nitschke's ­instructions to the letter would result in my death being an ­advert for Nitschke.

The head of Dignitas, Ludwig Minelli, is less a salesman than a philosopher, his enigmatic bearing more in keeping with his calling than with Nitschke's self-promotion. I'd enjoy chatting with him. In my fantasy, we'd be on cane chairs in his Zurich apartment discussing ­astronomy. I imagine him telling me that, in ­cosmological terms, my death at Dignitas would precede his by only a few ­milliseconds. He would congratulate me on my clear-sightedness.

Minelli doesn't believe in false consciousness. We are all competent and capable of deciding whether and when to avail ourselves of this ­"marvellous possibility". Everyone should have the right to kill themselves. For years, he has been demanding that the rules prohibiting the disabled and mentally ill from seeking an end be relaxed. To cope with the extra demand, Minelli envisages a Dignitas-style clinic on every street corner.

In 2008, 23-year-old Daniel James was paralysed in an accident on the rugby field. The dissonance between his self-image as a rugby hero and the ­reality of life as a tetraplegic proved fatal to his morale. His suicide at Dignitas was controversial, but his mother was sure she had done the right thing. In an interview afterwards, she said she was grateful to Dignitas for extending the suicide option to people without terminal illnesses.

The suicide doctor's smugness seems justified, reflecting increased consumer interest in "end of life solutions". It's no longer just bearded ­freethinkers or larger-than-life grandes dames e­ngaging them, but dynamic decision-makers ­rejecting some second-rung, low-flying version of their ­being. For me, suicide was an act of self-­preservation. I wanted Minelli to save me from the embarrassment of finding my self-image as a witty sophis­ticate no longer "matched" the ­reality. According to Wexler, the HD sense of ­humour, while robust, was infantile. From where I'm sitting, the prospect of spending Christmases laughing at Mr Bean feels like a fate worse than death. In my fantasy, Minelli offers to conduct my deliverance himself. It takes 10 minutes from ­beginning to The End.

Apart from my dad, I'd never seen anyone with HD. His affected relatives were all kept under wraps.

I became fascinated by Wexler's report of a ­community of HD sufferers in Venezuela where, through an accident of history, HD has ­become endemic. Her account of the inhabitants of the fishing villages on the shores of Lake ­Maracaibo was shocking and compelling, and eventually I decided to go there myself. En route to Barranquitas, I worried my curiosity might prove ill-­advised. An article in Business Week said the town was "like something out of the Twilight Zone".

On arrival, I was surprised how much of the scene was recognisable from Wexler's 20-year-old accounts. There was still no sanitation or running water. The shacks where most of the victims lived looked no more commodious. Here were the kids with their prematurely furrowed brows. And here was Lake Maracaibo, glinting ironically.

In one compound I was introduced to a family of eight. They described life with their HD-­affected relative.

For the past few years, Mariela had been aggressive, fighting her family and shouting at the kids. She was no longer herself, but a cipher of the illness. From her sister ­Marisela's account, it was clear she is in the later stages of what they call "el mal" – the evil. I was shocked to discover that she was seven months pregnant, but not surprised to learn that her symptoms worsened during pregnancy. I felt a stab of concern for her unborn child.

A local clinic offers sterilisation to patients with el mal. The doctor there says she has terrible trouble persuading women to have the operation. Mariela refused, even though she already had three children. How irresponsible, I thought.

According to her sister, Mariela often threatens to throw ­herself into the lake. Her raging seems to support the pro-­suicide lobby's contention that life without self-determination is intolerable. The repulsive image of Mariela gasping for breath in the toxic waters of this polluted lake, as her body's reflexes conflict with her will, haunted me for weeks. I'm not sure how Nitschke would rate ­asphyxiation in this toxic soup. It would be reli­able but less than peaceful. And yet how could she resist? It's a shorter trip than London to Zurich.

Marisela said that when she goes to work she worries about her sister. She described her relief, every time she comes home, on finding her alive. My ­expectation that I'd detect a note of ­ambi­valence in the relief was misplaced. The trauma and tedium of life spent caring for this ­doppelganger is, for Marisela, prefer­able to the ­alternative. Whenever it happened, if it ever did, her sister's suicide would play as self-destruction rather than self-deliverance.

I had never thought of suicide as violent or vile, and no ­wonder – our preferred ­methods are ­designed to obscure this painful ­reality. ­Suicide consumers have been sold a c­himera of a "­peaceful" end. The suppression of our s­uffocation responses has made it ­possible for us to think of suicide as an idea rather than a physical process. I now see that suicide isn't a modest proposal but a very immodest one.

This realisation was most unwelcome, like finding out your lover's true nature. I was still in love with the idea of easeful death, and yet the knowledge – this dark apprehension of the truth – couldn't be put aside. It may have played a part in ­Mariela's ­unwillingness to carry out her threats, but it wasn't the whole story. With a sinking heart, I apprehended the rest.

"Does she still love her children?"

"Yes."

"Do they know it?"

"Yes." She gestured up towards a tree. "When she's swinging here in the hammock with the kids playing underneath, everything is OK."

One peculiarity of HD is that it leaves intact the sufferers' ability to love their family. This is both the best thing about the illness and the worst. It means sufferers are likely to choose life, with all that this implies – and explains why Mariela has chosen a decade of terrible suffering over death.

Maternal love pins Mariela to the shore, defiantly producing children. I no longer feel she is irresponsible to refuse ­sterilisation. Mariela is landlocked, I realise, and so am I. The lake's redemptive promise cannot be fulfilled. Suicide is a fantasy. Loving my daughter, I am doomed to live.

I almost cancelled the visit I had scheduled to the clinic of Casa Hogar, there on Lake Maracaibo. Set up by an inspirational ­Venezuelan doctor, Margot de Young, in 1999, this is a centre where those in the advanced stages of HD come to live out their last months or years. Committed to life now, I knew that this would be me one day, writhing and incontinent in some no-frills holding pen for the damned.

At first glance, my fears were confirmed. There were no ­eco-friendly sculptural installations, no activity room, no garden, no therapeutic zones painted in colours with a ­positive emotional impact. The tiles were an institutional blue. A plastic ­Virgin Mary gazed down from the cornices.

Nurse Erlinda Guerrero told me that she learned everything she knows about how to look after these "special patients" from the clinic's founder. An overwhelming level of need in these communities prompted Young to turn a former bar in a run-down part of the barrio St Luis into a clinic for HD sufferers. The building was cheap, but Casa Hogar's running costs are high. The nurse sounded anxious, conveying a sense of crisis.

Food bills alone make it very expensive. The 34 inpatients ­consume vast quantities – as much as athletes, which in a sense they are. Chorea expends a lot of calories.

On the mezzanine level, we were introduced to a woman sewing straitjackets and bibs. She was wearing the carers' ­uniform – black trousers and a striking shirt in nursery print of a teddy bear hugging a rabbit. This struck me as rather un-PC. I'd heard that Venezuelans were sentimentalists, but still felt affronted on the patients' behalf. Were they too far gone to feel patronised by this depiction of them as flopsy bunnies?
Looking down at the scene below, I felt again that Minelli and the others are right. Without autonomy, life is meaningless.

The chairs were all facing a flickering telly. Their occupants all looked miserable. The lack of stimulation had clearly ­hastened the erosion of their pre-HD personalities. Without computers, they couldn't even blog. What would they have said if they could? There was no scene to record, none of the intrigues or dramas that make life interesting. It was ­terrible to think that some of them had been pitching on these same chairs for a decade, ever since the clinic opened. Helping them to die would surely be a more compassionate ­response to their plight than this perverse and costly ­commitment to keeping them alive.

"Aren't they bored?" I asked.

Nurse Guerrero looked offended. It took me a while, but then I saw why.

Lunch at Casa Hogar was one of the least boring I've ever ­attended. The atmosphere was charged with genuine jeopardy. Watching a patient being spoonfed, I was surprised to note that he didn't look passive or babyish. On the contrary, his face bore an expression of deep concentration, like a chess master ­between moves. He had more to lose than Kasparov, however.

Dysphagia – difficulty swallowing – is the most common cause of death in late-stage HD. The risk of choking means meal times contain the whole drama of human existence. Reaching for the spoon and risking death, the man revealed himself as a dynamic decision-maker of the first order.

When the bowl was empty, I wanted to applaud. I wanted him to live! This thought was interrupted by a wail of grief from the other side of the room. One of the most depressed-looking women, Luzmila Incarte, rose, lamenting, to her feet. Nurse ­Guerrero explained she'd recently found out that her son wouldn't be visiting at the weekend, as he'd promised. Nurse Guerrero hugged her consolingly. Her expression conveyed ­sympathy and maternal acceptance. Later she reminded me that most patients at this stage of the illness are aware of what they've lost. They are in mourning, and should be treated with the respect accorded to the bereaved. I understood why they are special. They are not in denial about their losses, like the rest of us.

The hug went on for a long time. A bit of me was willing her to do something, anything, to cheer the lady up. Her manner implied, riskily, that things are as bad as they appear.

It worked. Luzmila sat down, then got up again. She resumed lamenting in the same vein. Nurse Guerrero repeated the whole process with no trace of weariness. I felt I was ­witnessing a sacred ritual.

I, too, longed for a hug. One of the carers, Margarita Parra, obliged. In her arms, I feel like a rabbit being hugged by a teddy bear. I forget all my questions, which feels like a blessing.

Earlier in the day, Nurse Guerrero had told me I should listen to what people were saying, rather than assume I knew. I felt annoyed until I realised that that is what I had been doing with the patients, assuming their lives were meaningless. I'd been doing the same thing with myself, too, assuming I knew what I would want without listening. In Margarita's arms, I tuned into my being. I became aware of my self-consciousness about when would be the right time to pull away from the embrace, my anxiety about the photographer hovering nearby, my grief for the future, and my fear that I will end up like Luzmila, ­yearning for my children with no way of holding their attention.

Registering the discomfort of existence, I felt a great wave of self-pity, the first since my diagnosis. I felt worthy of being cherished and knew I'd do whatever it took to survive.

Back home, I told my husband he was right. The case for ­carrying on can't be argued. Suicide is rhetoric. Life is life.

Samaritans provides confidential support, 24 hours a day, for people who are experiencing ­feelings of distress or despair, including those that could lead to suicide.
• Huntington's disease is an incurable hereditary disorder of the central nervous system. For more information on the ­disease, including treatments available for sufferers, as well as advice for families and friends, go to hda.org.uk

The Guardian

Friday, January 15, 2010

Assisted Suicide - The Point of No Return

The Point of No Return

Oh how can good people get so confused? I am filled with dismay as I hear yet another celebrity adding their name to the pressure to legalise ‘Assisted Suicide'. They think they are furthering the cause of choice for vulnerable people. They think they are protecting the people who love them and want to help end their suffering. They think they are going to avoid some horrible experience of ‘unbearable suffering' themselves when their time comes. This is all the voice of fear and self interest speaking.

It is a popular view which seems to be oblivious of the reality for many sick, elderly or disabled people. To put it bluntly, we are not wanted. We are not wanted by a society which bases its values in productivity, competition and greed. Ask any mother of a disabled child if they feel the world treats their child as an equal.

Remember that to get born at all a disabled child has to survive the State's pre-natal screening process, usually by mistake or parental decision in the face of the advice to terminate. We live our lives struggling to be included, fighting for the support we need, campaigning constantly for basic rights.

Those few people who have loving relatives able to contemplate supporting their loved one to die are not the ones for whom the laws of our country should be directed. They should be directed at the thousands of people with disabilities, learning difficulties, chronic illnesses or just simply old and alone in hospital, abused and neglected, labelled as burdens, seen as wasting resources - Hitlers ‘Useless Eaters'. These are the people for whom we must hold a line as strong as steel that will defend their right to live and be treated well until they naturally die. Once we cross over the line that will condone the taking of a life by another then we have gone past the point of no return as human beings.

The shocking things we do to each other - genocide, wars, institutionalisation, the holocaust, all begin with small steps, tiny changes in our attitudes, incremental changes in the law, drip feeds of falsehoods, the suppression of opposition, a numbing down of our consciences, the hiding of the effects from public scrutiny. There is nothing which makes me confident that this will not happen if we ever agree as a nation that it is sometimes OK to kill another person.

As a disabled person, and a mother of a young disabled daughter, I do not want to live in a world which means we would be afraid to be ill, afraid to go to hospital, afraid to lose control of what happens to us, feeling we need constant bodyguards standing over our beds. It already feels like this. I have witnessed disabled friends of mine being asked to sign the ‘Do Not Resuscitate' form when they were in hospital with treatable chest infections. How much worse will it get if Lord Joffe and his friends get their way?

And then there are the doctors, sworn to the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. Will this have to change to ‘Not do harm unless you are asked to'? Do we have the right to ask a professional to do something we have all been brought up to think of as a sin, as wrong, as murder? I do not think so. Many will refuse, but the Harold Shipmans of this world will be celebrating all the way to the mortuary.

I have watched friends die. They were not feeling much because they were medicated to the point that they were comfortable. For one that meant they were barely conscious. We do not allow unbearable suffering any more in our highly developed welfare state, not of the physical kind at least. Perhaps we should concentrate instead on the unbearable suffering in our hearts and minds when we are told that the world would be a better place without us.

Micheline Mason
5th May.2009

ASSISTED SUICIDE AND DISABLED PEOPLE – A BRIEFING PAPER

There have been a number of recent high profile cases where disabled people have sought to legalise assisted suicide. DAA is concerned that should such legislation be introduced, the threat to the lives of disabled people will be greater than ever. We have produced a Briefing paper that outlines the arguments for and against.

Our society today is increasingly seeing impairment, disability and aging as facets of life to be avoided at all costs. We are also a society that, because of medical advances, have grown less and less used to pain and suffering. We expect the medical profession to find a solution to any problem that we may have. Death is an infrequent visitor to families as we live longer and are more likely to survive birth and maternity. Advances in the genetic sciences send out copious messages that we can have impairment free children, that it is quite all right to throw away embryos that have genes that may lead to disabling impairments, that we will get rid of aging and that we will soon be able to alter genes so that all problems will be solved.

We also live with the reality. The medical profession is not infallible and many people do not receive the treatment that they should and do suffer pain and indignity. Disabled people do not have enough support, either financial or personal, and many live highly restricted, solitary and poverty-stricken lives.

To read the full text of ASSISTED SUICIDE AND DISABLED PEOPLE – A BRIEFING PAPER click on one of the links below.

Assisted Suicide and Disabled People – A Briefing Paper WORD
Assisted Suicide and Disabled People – A Briefing Paper RTF
Assisted Suicide and Disabled People – A Briefing Paper PDF

 

Original Article Source: http://www.daa.org.uk/index.php?page=bioethics

With thanks to Disability Awareness in Action.


Monday, October 5, 2009

Abandoning the Vulnerable in the UK to Assisted Suicide Abuse


As promised, I have written more extensively about the head prosecutor in the UK decriminalizing inter-familial assisted suicide. From my piece in the current Weekly Standard:

On July 4, 1995, Myrna Lebov, age 52, committed suicide in her Manhattan apartment. The case generated national headlines when her husband, George Delury, announced that he had assisted Lebov’s suicide at her request because she was suffering the debilitations of progressive multiple sclerosis.

Delury became an instant celebrity. He was acclaimed as a dedicated husband willing to risk jail to help his beloved wife achieve her desired end. The assisted-suicide movement set up a defense fund and renewed calls for legalization. Delury made numerous television appearances and was invited to speak to a convention of the American Psychiatric Association. He signed a deal for a book, later published under the title But What If She Wants to Die?

Why bring this up now?

Had Delury acted in England or Wales today–rather than in New York in 1995–he almost surely would not have been prosecuted. Even though assisted suicide remains a crime in the U.K., newly published British guidelines have effectively decriminalized some categories of assisted suicide by instructing local prosecutors when bringing charges in such deaths is to be deemed “not in the public interest.”

Some might say that is what should have happened in the Delury case. But in that matter, truth seeped through the cracks of the compassion disinformation campaign. Perhaps because he was planning to write a book about his wife’s death, Delury had kept a diary. Rather than revealing a depth of love and selflessness, it instead showed vividly that Delury put Lebov out of his misery:

The diary showed that Lebov did not have an unwavering and long-stated desire to die, as Delury had claimed. Rather, as often happens with people struggling with debilitating illnesses, her mood waxed and waned. One day she would be suicidal–but the next day she was engaged in life. Delury, moreover, encouraged his wife to kill herself, or as he put it, “to decide to quit.” He researched her antidepressant medication to see if it could kill her, and when she took less than the prescribed amount, which in itself could cause depression, he stashed the surplus until he had enough for a poisonous brew.

That wasn’t all. When Delury’s book came out–after double jeopardy attached, he admitted smothering her with a plastic bag.

Now, consider the Delury/Lebov case in light of the UK decriminalization:

Thanks to the assisted suicide guidelines, potential Myrna -Lebovs in Britain are now at the mercy of future George Delurys. And those Delurys know full well that, so long as they don’t keep inculpating diaries, they will have little trouble convincing prosecutors that their motive was compassion, a claim readily believed in a society so fearful and disdainful of disability. Such are the consequences of the state prosecutor’s decision that protecting the dying and infirm from assisted suicide is no longer in the public interest.

Finally, add in a UK coroner’s inquest in the Kerrie Woolterton case concluding that doctors were right to stand by and let her die from swallowing anti freeze because she wrote a note refusing treatment, and you have a perfect storm of abandonment.

Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?

Origin:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/10/03/abandoning-the-vulnerable-in-the-uk-to-assisted-suicide-abuse/




Monday, September 28, 2009

Bully exposed by sacked dinner lady revealed to be son of school governor

One of the bullies at the centre of a row over a sacked dinner lady is the son of a school governor.

Carol Hill, 60, was sacked for telling the parents of seven-year-old Chloe David that their daughter had been tied up and whipped in the school playground.

The school had informed Scott and Claire David she had simply been 'hurt' in an incident with a skipping rope.

Mrs Hill was suspended after the incident in June and yesterday it emerged that she had been fired by a disciplinary tribunal for breaching pupil confidentiality at Great Tey Primary School, near Colchester, Essex.

Angry parents are demanding the resignation of headteacher and governors at the school and some are threatening to remove their children if Mrs Hill is not reinstated.

Parents have questioned whether Mrs Hill's sacking was influenced by the fact that a governor, who did not take part in disciplinary hearings, is mother of one of the four boys accused of tying Chloe's wrists and ankles with the skipping rope.

Sarah Harris, 36, who has two children at the school, said the treatment of the dinner lady was unfair.

'Maybe this would have been dealt with differently had a governor's child not been involved,' she told The Times.

'You put your trust in these people not only to teach your children but to keep them safe and look after their pastoral care.

'I am worried and very concerned as to what else may have been covered up.'
Sue and Ivan Dyer

Sue Dyer and her husband Ivan, 50, a horticultural engineer, have five children at Great Tey Primary School.

Mrs Dyer said: 'The way Carol's been treated is totally unjust. I would put total trust in her ability to look after my children.

'Carol is 100 per cent for children, she is a very popular figure in the village and the school.

'The children think Carol's coming back - they keep asking, when is Mrs Hall back?'

She added that she no longer had confidence in headmistress Debbie Crabb or the governors and called for her to stand down.

Friends say that Mrs Hill, from Great Tey, who has worked at the school for almost eight years, was 'shocked and very disappointed' by the decision but is planning to appeal.

One said: 'She thinks she's been treated really shabbily but she insists that if she saw a child being bullied again she would definitely step in like she did.'

Her husband, Ron, said: 'She's not been eating and has been really down. I can't describe how cross I am. I can't believe it's got this far. She's done nothing wrong.'

Mrs Hill has previously told how another pupil alerted her to the bullying incident. She found Chloe bound up and terrified.

She said: 'She had eight knots around her wrists and had been whipped across the legs with a skipping rope. I took her back into the school, along with four boys who had been seen with her. Two admitted it.'

Mr and Mrs David say Chloe, who had rope burns to her wrists and whip marks on her legs, was sent home with an accident notification letter. They could not find out what exactly had happened as she was in shock and refused to talk about it.

Later that evening, Mrs Hill was helping at a Beaver Scouts meeting and went over to Mrs David to say she was sorry about what happened.

Speaking in July, she said: 'As I was talking to her it became clear she did not know the whole story. I had to tell her because she then realised there was more to it.'

Mr and Mrs David have since withdrawn Chloe and their five-year-old son, Cameron, from the school.

They say that if Mrs Hill had not told them, they would never have been alerted to what had really happened. They later demanded to see the school's accident book which stated that Chloe had been tied up.


Mr David, 33, a steel worker, said last night: 'I'm disgusted and shocked that Mrs Hill has been sacked and I'm disgusted that the school has been able to cover everything up.

'It was her job to make sure that children's welfare was being looked after. That's what she did but she's now being punished for doing her job properly.

'We back Mrs Hill totally. She did not realise we did not know all the facts. We should have done - we should have been called into the school.'

He added: 'Chloe seems to be doing OK now. She seems to have bounced back better than us. We're still trying to cope with what happened.'

Many parents are backing the dinner lady and want her to be reinstated.

Margaret Morrissey, of family campaign group Parents Outloud, said: 'I'm absolutely sure she was just trying to act in the best interests of the child.

'I doubt if there's anyone who knew what had happened who wouldn't want to sympathise. I'm sure that parents will be very upset to hear that she's lost her job over it.'

Headmistress Debbie Crabb has insisted that Chloe's parents were told of the incident according to school 'accident and first aid procedures'. But she said the procedures would be reviewed.

She said yesterday: 'We can confirm that subject to any appeal Mrs Hill will not be returning to work at Great Tey Primary School.'

-------------
Editors Note: Please See the article below on this page, dealing with a similar issue, http://editor-disabilityarticles.blogspot.com/2009/09/governors-of-special-schools-do-they.html

Please also the original piece from the Daily Mail for more information and photographs, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215095/Sacked-Dinner-lady-told-parents-bullying-seven-year-old-daughter.html
------------

Mail Online, 24th September 2009

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Governors of Special Schools – do they know enough to safeguard the pupils?

If you’re the parent of a pupil at a Special School, you’re surely reassured that if the pupils were being mistreated or abused in any way, the people who would be most likely to know about it and act to stop it would be
a) the teachers
b) the Governing Body, especially the Parent Governors, who have a vested interest in protecting the pupils

Are you Governor of a Special School?
If not, do you know someone who is?
Or, as the parent or guardian of a pupil at a Special School, have you ever turned to a Governor for help or advice?
If you’re a teacher in a Special School, do you have contact with the Governing Body? Are the Governors inquisitive, interested, involved?

Why am I asking these questions? Well, as a teacher in a Special School who blew the whistle on prolonged verbal bullying of pupils by a teaching colleague and the failure of the head teacher and the LEA to stop it, my experience of Governors is, how can I put it….? Weird.

Weird. That’s the best word I can come up with. But is it typical? Only other people can tell me that.

After months and months of trying to get the bullying stopped, I managed to get someone at the County Council (the Head of Audit) to take me seriously. An independent investigation took place and a damning report that supported my claims was produced. I was given a copy of the summary report, but not of the complete report. This summary report was particularly critical of the Head Teacher, the Deputy Head and the Assistant Head. The County Council subsequently refused to release the full report to a Manchester Guardian journalist who requested it under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, according to the County Solicitor, the Governing Body is responsible “for the safety and welfare of staff and pupils”. And yet, given these weighty responsibilities, the Governing Body was not allowed so see a copy of the full report. Not only that, the Governing Body was not allowed to see even a copy of the summary report, either! And to cap it all, according to the LEA, the Governors did not ask questions after (and I’d love this bit, if we weren’t talking of such serious problems) the contents of the summary report were summarised for them by a member of the LEA! Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, once a summary report has been summarised, just how much remains?

Now, if you were a Governor who took your responsibilities seriously, especially if you were a Parent Governor with a child at the school, wouldn’t you have pressed to see at least the summary report? Wouldn’t you have wanted to questions the senior management members who had failed to protect the pupils and ask them for their reasons? All of which begs the question, did the LEA’s summary report of the summary report gloss over the problems at the school and hoodwink the Governing Body?

Then there was the Governors’ behaviour towards me, the whistle-blower. I was kept away from school, on “special leave”, for almost a year after blowing the whistle to the County Council. I had to fight to return. During that time, the Governing Body neither contacted me nor offered me any support or thanks for speaking out to protect the pupils (in some cases, their own sons and daughters) for whom they were legally responsible.

Why? Well, maybe the reason is that according to the LEA, until shortly before my eventual return to school, the Governing Body knew which two teachers had been involved, that one had blown the whistle and that the other had bullied the pupils long term, but weren’t told which teacher was which! If you had been one of those Governors, wouldn’t you have wrongly assumed that the teacher who’d been kept out of school for almost a year (i.e. me) was the one who’d carried out the bullying?

Before I returned to school, I insisted that the Governing Body should be told that I was the teacher who’d blown the whistle. I couldn’t bear the thought of facing Parent Governors at Parents Evening, with them thinking that I was the teacher who’d been so cruel over such a long period to their children. I was assured in writing by the County Council that the Governors had been told at a meeting of the Governing Body that I was the whistle blower. Yet when I later received the minutes of that meeting after exercising my right under the Data Protection Act, there was no record of the Governing Body being given this information.

So, are my experiences typical? Do LEA’s keep Governing Bodies in the dark about what’s really happening in the schools that they serve? If you have had experiences that might help answer these questions, please share them.


By Mrs A Teacher, September 2009

All comments or feedback on this post should be expressed by using the comments options related to this post, or directed to editor@uhad2bthere.co.uk

© The Author 2009

This post may not be reproduced, in part or whole, without the express permission of uhad2bthere.

--------------