I was sad when I read about Daniel James.
When I say sad it was not just because of his condition or the decision he came to, but that we in this society of ours have forgotten that in societies past there was a personal choice. Greeks took their lives for many reasons - Socrates was given the option - take his life or be executed. Dianne Pretty had a choice - take her own life or be executed by the disease and Debbie Purdy is facing the same dilemma. Three deaths that are nasty, uncomfortable - not that death is comfortable - and possibly painful. Dianne Pretty wanted her husband with her at the end to help her in her last moments and so does Debbie Purdy. Both women are entitled to have their wishes respected. Socrates was niether brave nor foolish but merely practical in following the edicts of the times.
Daniel James made a choice - right or wrong - to take the Socratean way, condemned as he was to a life with very little meaning - a life sentence more restricting than a murderer, more punishing than being on death row in an American state prison. He made his choice and his parents and family did their best to help him carry it out.
The 'what ifs' are obvious - what if he were cured of his paralysis?
What if he regained some control of his body some years down the track?
Obviously there is also what if he didn't?
He could spend a hopeless life seeking hope or have hope and keep going or do as he did and end his life. Not much choice really is there?
But I knew a man in New Zealand whom I shall call Joe who was in a similar position. He sustained a spinal injury that paralysed his whole body and although he could talk and eat he had to have everything else catered for. He was kept in a spinal treatment unit and one day a nurse doing a regular test on his extremities saw a reaction and this began waht turned out for Joe a painful recovery. I met him in the rehabilitation unit and the man was an inspiration to me to work towards my own recovery - his condition made mine look like a scratch to a major open wound - and I saw him recover almost completely.
Daniel James may not have had that option.
But what makes me sad is that he might have had the chance.
What else makes me sad is that his family cannot rest and take stock in their grief without being charged with the crime of assisting suicide.
I do not agree with assisted suicide as a means of resolving a situation unless that situation is proved to be hopeless for the person concerned. The thought of allowing this solution to happen without extreme justification is horrendous - the opportunity for abuse is too much to contemplate, but there is a need to make a law that will allow people in situations such as Dianne Pretty, Debbie Purdy and now Daniel James to make a rational decision and then permit their loved ones to accompany them without prosecution.
It is time that this situation is carefully examined and the law process carefully devised to make sure that people have the right to die with dignity.
Is it morally acceptable to deny choice to a rational person as a opposed to making a choice for somebody who is perhaps too ill to think rationally. Danial James, Dianne Pretty, Debbie Purdy and Socrates are all rational people and it seems irrational that they are not allowed to make their choice without it affecting the lives of those who love them in such a way as to cause them suffering.
Did the man who handed Socrates the hemlock suffer from the hands of the law? No, the cup was properly prepared and willingly taken.
I am not brave enough to make such a choice - are you?