Simon Duffy

Thoughts, Bemusements & Arguments

Tag: euthanasia

Assisted Dying or Nazi Eugenics

Spot the difference.

Here are the words of the Assisted Dying Bill 2 which is currently being promoted by Rob Marris MP in the UK Parliament:

Subject to the consent of the High Court (Family Division) pursuant to subsection (2), a person who is terminally ill may request and lawfully be provided with assistance to end his or her own life. Subsection (1) applies only if the High Court (Family Division), by order 5 confirms that it is satisfied that the person:

  1. has a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end his or her own life;
  2. has made a declaration to that effect in accordance with section 3; and
  3. on the day the declaration is made: (i) is aged 18 or over (ii) has the capacity to make the decision to end his or her own life; and (iii) has been ordinarily resident in England and Wales for not less than one year.

Susanne E Evans, in her book Forgotten Crimes wrote:

“…a [Nazi] Ministry of Justice Commission on the Reform of the Criminal Code drafted a similar law sanctioning “mercy killing” of people suffering from incurable diseases. The law read, in part:

Clause 1 Whoever is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness which is a major burden to him or others, can request mercy killing by a doctor, provided it is his express wish and has the approval of a specially empowered doctor.

Clause 2 The life of a person who because of incurable mental illness requires permanent institutionalisation and is not able to sustain an independent existence, may be prematurely terminated by medical procedures in a painless and covert manner.”

We are not quite at the point where most people agree with Clause 2. However the proposed Assisted Dying Bill proposed by Lord Falconer is essentially identical to Clause 1 of the Nazi Bill described by Suzanne Evans and which was the first stage in the legitimising the T-4 Action (which killed over 100,000 people with disabilities). The gas chambers which had been used to kill people with disabilities were then disassembled and taken to concentration camps and used on the Jews.

The connections between euthanasia, eugenics and the Holocaust are profound. Either life is sacred and its dignity should never be undermined or all is relative and we will leave the powerful to decide who counts as important and who doesn’t.

If someone really believes their life is worthless they are just wrong.

Dr Andrew Lucas and Perpetual Life – A Film

I awoke this morning from my dreams with the idea for a film in my head. I am no script-writer and I will never find time to complete this project, so I share it here. If you want to turn it into a film or something else then please be my guest.

A shot of London – subtitle: Year 2166

We pan over London which now appears even shinier, and the streets are full of people celebrating the victory of England in the World Cup. An open top bus (suitably modernised) floats through the crowd. On the top are many familiar faces, including Wayne Rooney and many other members of the current England team.

Now cut to inside St Paul’s Cathedral, where there is a celebratory service going on, again we see the heads of Rooney and his team mates, we also see that the audience is full of beautiful young people, happy and genuinely attentive. They watch a young and handsome Archbishop of Canterbury who is giving a sermon.

Archbishop:

“How great is Great Britain! Yet again we are victorious at football. Yet again we prove that, truly, we are building Jerusalem here, in this green and pleasant land.

“And it is here in Britain that the great discoveries have been, the great steps forward in human progress. 400 year ago St Adam Smith uncovered the workings of the market. Only then did men come to understand that progress depends upon selfishness. This revelation then opened up the age of progress, industry and happiness.

“300 years ago St Charles Darwin uncovered the true workings of nature. Now we understand that we are not, directly, creatures of God, but of evolution, and that progress comes from the on-going battle of the strong to overcome the weak.

“Then, just 150 years ago, our living saint, Dr Andrew Lucas, made the next great British discovery.

Cut to an earnest young man sitting amidst the congregation who nods and smiles modestly in recognition of the Archbishop’s comments. Cut back to Archbishop who is continuing with his sermon.

“Dr Lucas has discovered the essence of life itself, the life force, the vital link between physics, chemistry and biology. Lucas has discovered that element of our life blood which makes life possible. Using his discoveries Britain then began its programme of extending Perpetual Life to everyone. The doors of heaven are now truly open.

“All these great discoveries have had to be matched by an evolution in our religion. Today the New Church of England has managed to uproot the heresy of life after death. We’ve gone back to the Bible and demonstrated the real meaning of Christ’s sacrifice. It was not some mysterious life after death that he was offering us – instead it was a message about the real possibility of heaven on earth. Today more and more people are taking advantage of the opportunities of Perpetual Life, as Dr Lucas and his team work to make this new technology available to everyone.

“So, let us thank God for England’s victory in the World Cup. Let us thank God for Dr Lucas and his brilliant discoveries that have made all this possible. And let us thank God for Great Britain, the country that has opened the doors of heaven.”

Congregation enthusiastically clap the Archbishop. The Camera pulls back from St Paul’s and pans to St Thomas’s hospital which is now one of the grandest building along the Thames. We are in a teaching theatre, where junior doctors are being educated, and are being addressed by a beautiful young (female) professor of medicine.

Professor of Medicine:

“Welcome everyone to your first course in the medicine of Perpetual Life. As trained doctors you will already know much of what I am about to show you; but it is always helpful to be reminded of the foundations, that underlie our vital science. So let us begin by watching this short film.”

We now watch the first scenes of an introductory teaching film on Perpetual Life. Suitable documentary images accompany the narration.

Film narration:

“In 2016 UK Parliament began the process of legalising euthanasia (or as it is now called Happy Death). The first step towards Happy Death was to allow people the right to end their life, under medical supervision.

“It was then that a brilliant young doctor, Dr Andrew Lucas, decided to specialise on end of life medicine. At first his programme focused on helping people be genuinely happy as their life ended, new drugs were developed and the process was made not just painless, but pleasurable.

“However, naturally, Dr Lucas also began to wonder whether there might not be other advantages to the Happy Death programme. A dead body can teach us much, a dying body can give up its organs to help others. But what if a living body could give up it’s very life force? What if life itself could be transferred from one individual to another?

“It was this profound insight that opened up the field of Perpetual Life (or PL). Today a willing patient can transfer their life force to another person, to extend their life and even to maintain them in state of perpetual youth and health.

“Dr Lucas himself, as a brave pioneer, first began to carry out these experiments upon himself and so he became the first person to benefit from PL. Then of course he turned to the leading minds of the time to win support. If it was not for the support of Heaven TV and the vision of its owner Mr Rupert Murdoch then his discoveries may have gone to waste. But after joining the PL Programme Mr Murdoch became its primary patron. Leading politicians joined him on the programme, and so his support grew. Today all our leading writers, scientists, film stars and sporting heroes are proud participants in the PL Programme – staying young, living longer and working to build a better world for everyone.

“Of course there are still mysteries to uncover; for just as it took many years to discover DNA, and so explain the truth behind Darwin’s theory of evolution, so we have not yet fully understood the mechanism by which the life force exists.

“Dr Lucas is continuing to work on the development of an artificial version of the life force. He will be successful; but until that time the PL programme must continue to exist in partnership with the Happy Death programme. We still need some people willing to give up their lives, in order to extend the lives of the best, the beautiful and the successful.

“We are also still limited by the constant of life – the 70 years rule. For while the life force can be transferred, the transfer value of life is set at a maximum of 70 years, and varies in accordance with how much life has been sacrificed. Life is extended by 70 minus the years already lived. So this means the most useful lives are those of the youngest.

“So while everybody wants to join the PL Programme we are not yet able to offer everyone the joys of the programme. Instead we must appeal to those who are ill, who are disabled or unhappy. We must offer them the chance to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Fortunately the technology of Happy Death has so improved that many more people are willing to step forward and offer their lives in sacrifice. For many people a few months of extreme happiness is well worth the loss of many years of life.

“Today the systems of Quality Adjusted Life Prices (QALPs) enables people to evaluate their options and to choose to trade in their life for a Happy Death. This is a independent, market-based system, all carefully overseen by NICE (the National Institute for Care Excellence).”

“Life and death has always seemed like a lottery. The best of humanity can be unfairly struck down, while the worst can hang on for decades. Today, thanks to the expertise of doctors like you, thanks to the patronage of Mr Murdoch and Heaven TV and thanks to the good people at NICE, death is being tamed. Death is now fairer and perpetual life is possible for the brightest and the best.”

At this point the film could develop in a number of different ways. Here are three options:

  1. We follow Dr Lucas becoming angrier with himself and with the system he has created, as he discovers, yet again, that he cannot overcome the life constant or develop the life force artificially. The film follows his efforts to pull down the system around himself and the way in which powerful forces within the media, politics and economics will not allow him to do so. [or]
  2. We follow the story of one of the members of the PL community who is finding that they can no longer earn the money necessary to stay on the programme. They become convinced that the high price and limited supply of PL is a plot to enrich the rich. However, by exploring what really happens to those outside the programme, and those on the Happy Death programme he discovers that in fact everything possible is being done to extend PL to as many people as possible (e.g. people are encouraged to give up their babies for HD at birth, people are being paid to join the HD programme, their family are being assured places on the waiting list for the PL programme, mental illness and suicide are being encouraged in low income families.) He then tries to share what he’s learned – but he is discovered and he is forced to join the HD programme himself. [or]
  3. We focus on a revolutionary movement, perhaps based in the North of England (say Sheffield), where people organise to overcome the powerful forces of the PL programme. This could involve a love interest story, where there is love between someone on the PL programme, perhaps in a position of influence, and a terrorist trying to tear the system down. This could also build on the idea that heretical religious groups continue to exist underground, who continue to spread their belief that life is sacred and that everyone is of equal value.

You may have much better ideas about where to take this story. But if you decide to make a film, book or play from this idea, don’t worry I promise not to sue you. However, if you do make any money please donate some to the disability campaigners who are fighting the Assisted Dying Bill:

http://www.notdeadyetuk.org

Why We Mustn’t Murder Beethoven (or Anyone Else)

One doctor asks another:

“About the termination of pregnancy – I want your opinion. The father was a syphilitic, the mother tuberculous, of the children born the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was tuberculous. What would you have done?”

“I would have ended the next pregnancy.”

“Then you would have murdered Beethoven.”

Story from Maurice Baring

The power of this story is twofold. First the story reminds us that our genetic pedigree is a poor basis for predicting talent. The doctor thinks he knows the likely outcome of the pregnancy, but he does not. Life and nature is still, thankfully, too unpredictable for such doctors to be able to predict such things.
But much more importantly the story asks us to examine our values. What if this young Beethoven had not been the great composer, but had been a child with disabilities. The doctor would have been just as wrong to end the pregnancy. The real arrogance of the doctor was to presume to judge the value of a human life, in advance and without being able to appreciate that person’s own story.

The Eugenic Fallacy

The contemporary philosopher, Peter Singer, is not the only modern thinker who thinks ‘the handicapped baby should die’. Eugenics is not dead, it is just in hiding. Singer is just more outspoken than most.

But he, like other eugenicists, is guilty of a fallacy. His views may seem obviously wicked to some of us; but to many others they are quite tempting. Yet they are also deeply illogical – as I will attempt to show – and it is logic by which philosophers like Singer must live or die.
To begin with, let us acknowledge, even if we know that we  disagree with the eugenicist, that their  arguments do build on some kind of distorted truth.
Humanity is varied (as it should be) and, of course, part of that variability means that there are some of us who are weaker than others. [Although the concept of weakness is quite ambiguous concept, but we’ll leave that for another day.] This weakness, for example, might mean that I might need help to eat or to thrive; and this help can be treated as a cost – not just a financial cost – but as a cost in the lives of others. 
The eugenicist then demands that we put aside compassion, sympathy or love and instead we judge ‘honestly’ and examine the ‘burden’ that love or morality seems to demand: all the feeding, the caring, or the helping. At some point, they argue, we must recognise that this burden just becomes ‘unreasonable.’ And, of course, there is a genuine temptation here. Most of us might resent the care that we must take of others – all of us can imagine something else that we might do that would be more fun, pleasurable, relaxing, creative, productive etc. [Here we can each choose our own utilitarian poison.]
But how can there be an end to this. Each time we destroy the weakest a new weakest must emerge. Those who were second from last will now become last. There will always be someone with less, who needs more, it is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. The eugenic knife must keep on cutting – once we’ve decided that we are at liberty to destroy the weak we will find new people who are weak – and who must therefore be destroyed.
There can be no end to the destruction. And as the process destruction begins there must therefore appear two classes, those who destroy and those to be destroyed. We may feel that we will not belong to either class, but ultimately we must choose – there is only the illusion of a middle ground. If we are silent while the destruction goes on then we are complicit with destruction. If we resist then we stand with those who they wish to destroy.
Eugenics always opens this gulf within humanity – it is profoundly inhuman because it forgets that diversity and weakness is of our very essence. But it is profoundly illogical because it forgets that eugenics changes everything, for all of us. The eugenicist argues as if the act of genocide is merely some neutral act of science. But always there will be those who wield the knife, inject the toxin or turn on the gas. We must become killer or victim. And as the victims pile up the killers must turn on each other. Eugenics is pragmatically self-contradictory – it cannot be sustained (which is not to say it cannot happen – it is happening now).
Eugenics is a particularly tempting philosophy for those who are powerful or wish to be amongst the powerful. In the nineteenth century, as Arendt argued, it was a critical element in the thinking of al the competing elites – liberals, progressives, imperialists and racists:

Darwinism met with such overwhelming success because it provided, on the basis of inheritance, the ideological weapons for race as well as class rule and could be used for, as well as against, race discrimination. Politically speaking, Darwinism as such was neutral, and it has led, indeed, to all kinds of pacifism and cosmopolitanism as well as to the sharpest forms of imperialistic ideologies. In the seventies and eighties of the last century, Darwinism was still almost exclusively in the hands of the utilitarian anti-colonial party in England. And the first philosopher of evolution, Herbert Spencer, who treated sociology as part of biology, believed natural selection to benefit the evolution of mankind and to result in everlasting peace. For political discussion, Darwinism offered two important concepts: the struggle for existence with optimistic assertion of the necessary and automatic “survival of the fittest,” and the indefinite possibilities which seemed to lie in the evolution of man out of animal life and which started the new “science” of eugenics. 

The doctrine of the necessary survival of the fittest, with its implication that the top layers in society eventually are the “fittest,” dies as the conquest doctrine had died, namely, at the moment when the ruling classes in England or the English domination in colonial possessions were no longer absolutely secure, and when it became highly doubtful whether those who were the “fittest” today would still be the fittest tomorrow. The other part of Darwinism, the genealogy of man from animal life, unfortunately survived. Eugenics promised to overcome the troublesome uncertainties of the survival doctrine according to which it was impossible either to predict who would turn out to be the the fittest or to provide the means for the nations to develop everlasting fitness. This possible consequence of applied eugenics was stressed in Germany in the twenties as a reaction to Spengler’s Decline of the West. The process of selection had only to be changed from a natural necessity which worked behind the backs of men into an “artificial,” consciously applied physical tool. Bestiality had always been inherent in eugenics, and Ernst Haeckel’s early remark [1904] that mercy-death would save “useless expenses for family and state” is quite characteristic. Finally the last disciples of Darwinism in Germany decided to leave the field of scientific research altogether, to forget about the search for the missing link between man and ape, and started instead their practical efforts to change man into what the Darwinists thought an ape is.

Hannah Arendt from The Origins of Totalitarianism 

Today we have our own ‘neoliberal’ version of eugenics. ‘Let the market do the work of the eugenicist. Let those who are unworthy fall aside. Greed is natural and good. We are powerful, rich and strong because we are the best. We should survive and thrive, they should fail.’
This road to Hell has been trod before. The fact that it is all illogical nonsense does not stop it from growing in strength. Its strength is rooted, not in truth, but in fear and in our natural desire not to find ourselves on the losing side – the side of the weak. 
The only thing that will stop it before it destroys everything is that either when the weak themselves resist or that those who have not yet been marked out as weak choose to stand beside them. 
The trial lies before us now, but we close our eyes and hope it will go away of its own accord. This never works.

Death Comes Softly Shod

The law’s been passed and I am lying low
Hoping to hide from those who think they are
Kindly, compassionate. My step is slow.
I hurry. Will the executioner
Be watching how I go?

Others about me clearly feel the same.
The deafest one pretends that she can hear.
The blindest hides her white stick while the lame
Attempt to stride. Life has become so dear.
Last time the doctor came,

All who could speak said they felt very well.
Did we imagine he was watching with
A new deep scrutiny? We could not tell.
Each minute now we think the stranger Death
Will take us from each cell

For that is what our little rooms now seem
To be. We are prepared to bear much pain,
Terror attacks us wakeful, every dream
Is now a nightmare. Doctor’s due again.
We hold on to the gleam

Of sight, a word to hear. We act, we act,
And doing so we wear our weak selves out.
We said “We want to die” once when we lacked
The chance of it. We wait in fear and doubt.
O life, you are so packed

With possibility. Old age seems good.
The ache, the anguish – we could bear them we
Declare. The ones who pray plead with their God
To turn the murdering ministers away,
But they come softly shod.

Euthanasia (1980) by Elizabeth Jennings

The poem imagines the psychological damage done by permitting euthanasia: the old and infirm now realise that the role of the doctor is not just to protect them from death. Suddenly – with kind and good intentions – the doctor has turned into a murdering minister.

And of course, we are all old and infirm (only not just yet) and so we all begin to realise that our life is suddenly going to be much more conditional on the judgement of these compassionate professionals. Certainly, important rules will be put in place to keep us safe (or so they say): (a) we must really will our own death, and (b) there must be no hope of recovery. We can even hope that these new rules will be followed – most of the time.

But this new right – the right to be hurried to death – completely changes our moral status. We used to be sacred beings. It was wrong for others to kill us and it was wrong to kill ourselves. But in this new world we will merely be containers for experiences – shopping bags, ready to be filled with a variety of goods – of varying quality. Too many low grade experiences and we will be ready for death, but if we can maintain our experiences at a sufficiently high grade – well we have nothing fear – at least not yet.

Who judges the quality of these experiences? Well I am sure we still be allowed at least one vote on this; but it seems that others will now be asked to decide whether we are having ‘a life worth living.’ And if we are a little confused, if we lack capacity to cast our own vote, then what happens to our vote? Can we be out-voted? It would seems so irrational to protect the irrational from the fair and pleasant death that is now on offer – and after all – by definition such a life is hardly worth much. [Although again the question of whose definition does not always seem to get raised by the euthanasia enthusiasts.]

There is no recovery from life. Death is where we are all going – so what is wrong with hurrying things along a little when things get difficult? And although you may be happy now, you may be sad tomorrow – and vice versa. Nothing removes uncertainty like death.

In this new world death will come softly shod – but it will change everything.

How Euthanasia leads to Eugenics

…a [Nazi] Ministry of Justice Commission on the Reform of the Criminal Code drafted a similar law sanctioning “mercy killing” of people suffering from incurable diseases. The law read, in part: 

“Clause 1 Whoever is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness which is a major burden to him or others, can request mercy killing by a doctor, provided it is his express wish and has the approval of a specially empowered doctor. 

“Clause 2 The life of a person who because of incurable mental illness requires permanent institutionalisation and is not able to sustain an independent existence, may be prematurely terminated by medical procedures in a painless and covert manner.” 

From Forgotten Crimes by Susanne E Evans

Notice that the first clause is almost exactly what those seeking to advance euthanasia in the UK are putting forward as a reasonable legal measure. And notice the easy and natural step to by-passing the question of voluntary choice for those who might be deemed lacking mental capacity.

There is hardly a break between euthanasia and eugenics – the first creates the licence to ignore the dignity of human life, the second gives others the duty to ignore it.

© 2017 Simon Duffy

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑