The Right to Choice: in life and in death

I am not well equipped to deal with death and I am not alone. I am well aware that I (along with many others) have a false sense of indestructibility, a sense which not only denies the certainty of my own mortality but also that of the people who surround me. When death comes it is shocking and unbelievable. It is completely incomprehensible that at any moment my life or the life of somebody I love could be taken away. Even the act of writing about it seems morbid and unnecessary. "What happened to the 'glad game'?" you're saying, "let's get back to the random acts of kindness and smiles and happiness", and as I'm writing this I'm fighting the urge to do exactly that. The reason I will continue to fight that urge (for today at least) is a documentary I saw yesterday at the Sydney Film Festival which has left me contemplating death, not in a morbid or depressing way, but as it applies to life and the choices we have when that life is coming to an end.

Winner of the documentary category at this years Sundance Film Festival, 'How to Die in Oregon' is a powerful and moving exploration of the legalisation of doctor-assisted death for terminally ill patients in the State of Oregon, USA. The law which was enacted in 1997, was passed on the grounds that it was not doctor administered euthanasia (which is a physician delivered lethal injection) but rather a self-administered medication taken by physically able (although terminally diagnosed) and mentally fit patients. The film documented the final journey of several patients who had chosen to utilise the Death with Dignity Act, providing them the ability to obtain a prescription of lethal medications from a physician for voluntary self-administration if and when they chose.

Physician or family assisted death is understandably a very controversial ethical and medical debate, the fight for survival is strong in all of us and the voluntary ending of life is incomprehensible to many but  I think one of the most poignant points that each of the patients made when posed with opposition from people who disagree with the Act was that "I am not choosing death. I am simply exercising my right to die with dignity". Given the choice, each and every one of them would have chosen life but as untreatable patients of cancer and other degenerative illnesses, death had already chosen them. And we aren't talking about the type of death where you quietly and painlessly slip away in your sleep, these people were facing long, painful and humiliating declines in which they would suffer greatly for months, slowly losing control of their bodily functions and all quality of life. It is worth noting that not all patients in the documentary ended their lives using the medication, for some it was more for peace of mind than for actual use. And for those who did self-administer the medication, they did so after much counselling and consultation with physicians and social workers, and only at the point when the pain and suffering had become too much to continue on.

Not surprisingly their stories moved me to tears on more than one occasion. Watching those people and their families coming to terms with their fast approaching mortality was extremely confronting. It left me contemplating my own life and health with extreme gratitude as well as how I would handle such a situation if it were me or my friends or family. I pray that I will never find myself or someone I love in their shoes but the fact is that there are many people facing terminal illness every day and in Australia we are not provided the legal right to die with dignity. Whilst I understand that many people for religious or other reasons are opposed to such an option I strongly believe that each and every individual should have the right to make that choice for themselves. Article Five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: ''No one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and I believe the right for a death with dignity falls into that category. Apparently I am not alone in my thoughts on the subject, with 85% of Australians believing in the right of the terminally ill to obtain medical assistance to end their lives, but still it is not legislated.

If you respect the right to choose please visit these websites to find out more and support the legislation of the human right to die with dignity in Australia:

Your Last Right
Death With Dignity NSW

Foundations for the "greater good": moral philosophy

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

It forms the very core of who we are as human beings; dictating how we interact with each other and our environment, and yet it evades all five senses, so how are we supposed to understand it? Moral philosophy first sparked my interest three years ago when it popped up as a brief introduction to one of my media subjects. I'd been 24 years on this planet before I'd received any formal education on theories of ethics and morality, quite an oversight, I remember thinking at the time. I had imagined that something which was so essential to my humanity would have been broached a little earlier. I did of course receive plenty of informal training, "don't drown your sister in the bath", "don't put the cat in the letterbox", "don't take somebody elses food without asking"; these things were BAD. All those little hints did help to point me in the right direction but like so many other things we are taught when we're young it was "1+1=2, because it just did". As far as morals went there was never any real framework for examination or exploration, I was simply expected to be GOOD and had to guess the rest. 

As per the always evasive nature of philosophy, moral philosophy offers no concrete answers for what is right and what is wrong nor how we negotiate this daily see-saw but it does provide some concepts which have helped me to wrap my head around this intangible force within. There are three main theoretical areas within the field: metaethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. Metaethics is the most abstract, examining the meaning and origin of morality, eg. do morals exist independently of us or are they human conventions? And what psychological factors motivate us to act morally? Normative ethics examine how we regulate these moral conventions, for example the consequentialist theories break it down into three categories:

1. Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to the person performing the action.

2. Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone except the person performing the action.

3. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone.

Finally there are applied ethics which focus specifically on analysing various moral issues (eg. welfare, animal rights), employing various normative theories to determine right from wrong. It’s a lot to take in and this is only the tip of the iceberg but I think this is really interesting stuff. I'd love to go into more detail but everything you need you can find at the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy (Ethics). 

Good and bad, wrong and right, they can make the world go round or stop completely. I want to understand why I act the way I do in different moral situations and even more than that I want to understand why other people act the way they do when faced with right and wrong. I believe change begins with understanding and this forms the basis of my journey, to understand as much as I can so that I can go into the world and do well, but more importantly I can go into the world and do "good".

Rachel