Friday, 19 September 2008

Alzheimer's disease and assisted suicide

The leading BBC Radio current affairs programmes - World at One at lunchtime and PM in the early evening - have today been carrying coverage of the suggestion by Baroness Warnock that dementia sufferers should, if that is what they wish, be assisted to commit suicide. Neil Hunt, Chief Executive of the Alzheimer's Society on World at One, and replayed on PM, described Baroness Warnock's position as being "very wide of the mark". He used the word "sub-human" to describe the way in which the language of burden and financial drain treated Alzheimer's sufferers as if they were a group not entitled to the same rights of care, to the "right to be with us", that other people enjoy.

John Smeaton has posted on this topic here.

As reported on the BBC News website:


People with dementia should be able to end their lives if they feel they are a burden to others or to the NHS, according to a respected ethicist. Baroness Mary Warnock, who has made similar calls in recent years, first made her remarks in a Church of Scotland magazine. She told the BBC she believed there were many who "sank into dementia when they would very much prefer to die". But Alzheimer's charities called her remarks "insensitive and ignorant".

Speaking on PM Baroness Warnock was very clear that feeling that they are a burden (or being a burden) to relatives, and being a financial drain on the resources the National Health Service were sufficient reason to justify assisted suicide for an Alzheimer sufferer, if that is what they wish. She held to the legitimacy of the financial reason as justification for assisted suicide when challenged by the interviewer. Baroness Warnock suggested that the patient themselves should be allowed to consider suicide if they became a financial or emotional burden to their relatives, or a drain on the resources of the National Health Service. Neil Hunt argued that she was condemning Alzheimer's sufferers to a kind of "sub-category" and that the Alzheimer's Society did not want to have anything to do with that.

This contrasts sharply with a passage from Pope John Paul II's Salvifici Doloris:



A source of joy is found in the overcoming of the sense of the uselessness of suffering, a feeling that is sometimes very strongly rooted in human suffering. This feeling not only consumes the person interiorly, but seems to make him a burden to others. The person feels condemned to receive help and assistance from others, and at the same time seems useless to himself. The discovery of the salvific meaning of suffering in union with Christ transforms this depressing feeling. Faith in sharing in the suffering of Christ brings with it the interior certainty that the suffering person "completes what is lacking in Christ's afflictions"; the certainty that in the spiritual dimension of the work of Redemption he is serving, like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters. Therefore he is carrying out an irreplaceable service. In the Body of Christ, which is ceaselessly born of the Cross of the Redeemer, it is precisely suffering permeated by the spirit of Christ's sacrifice that is the irreplaceable mediator and author of the good things which are indispensable for the world's salvation. It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls. Suffering, more than anything else, makes present in the history of humanity the powers of the Redemption.


Observations:

1. As Baroness Warnock argues, should an Alzheimer sufferer, provided it is determined in some way (difficult!) that they wish to do so, be assisted to commit suicide? Is the patients wish what makes such an act morally acceptable? Answer: No, the principle that "what I want is therefore morally acceptable" is clearly not universally acceptable. So, even if the patient might wish it, that does not thereby make assisted suicide morally right. Other moral criteria need to come in to play.

2. An interesting side issue. In the context of child protection, the "best interests" of the child are meant to be paramount, and one might have assumed a similar principle would apply to care of those suffering from mental illness. True, as put into practice, the idea of what are the "best interests" of the child/patient is itself a concept that has its problems, but Baroness Warnock has undertaken an assimilation of the idea of "best interests" of the patient to that of the "wishes of the patient". Subtle but significant ...

3. The Alzheimer's Society (and at least one other Alzheimer's charity) are to be congratulated on the effectiveness of their media response to Baroness Warnock's suggestion. They have very clearly advocated on behalf of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. They clearly argue for improved care for Alzheimer's sufferers.

4. When the recorded interview with Baroness Warnock was played on PM - technical problems had meant that she was not able to take part in a telephone discussion on World at One - did I detect a pause and "hard swallow" from the presenter as he moved on to the next item? If any one heard the item, or listens to it on the BBC websites "listen again" feature, perhaps you could let me know if you agree. Perhaps look at Mulier Fortis comment, too, after she heard PM's coverage in her car on the way home: "Listening to the Baroness talking was a terrifying experience..". It will give you a feel for the impression created by Baroness Warnock's interview.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I heard the Baroness on the radio news tonight and i felt there was quite a lot of emphasis put on the cost of caring for people with dementia.If someone did agree this was a good idea would they have to specify in advance as to when they were "put down"? For example when they no longer recognize their relatives or when they become incontinent or when they become bed-ridden and who then has to take the decision when that time has been reached?
It makes me feel quite scared for the future.

Anonymous said...

I can't remember if the Warnock report of ?1985 which considered IVF( and when life actually begins) whether the cost of fertility treatment and the possible financial implications on
health services was addressed.

Joe said...

First anonymous:

Yes, I think "scared" is the right word to be using.
It is particularly stunning when one recognises how readily the underlying principle extends to other forms of illness (though Baroness Warnock dismissed that possibility quite forcefully in the Radio 4 interview - her dismissal of it though is transparently illogical).
The other stunning aspect is that, as you listened to Baroness Warnock, it all sounded so reasonable... when in reality it is rather barbaric that we should be categorising people on the basis of how much they cost to the state.

Joe said...

Second anonymous:

Good point!

Mulier Fortis said...

It scared me, partly because the Baroness was herself so incapable of seeing that her comments were bound to be generalised to other groups... and that she herself had started from one position (people want to die) and moved through another (people have a duty to die) to a third position (the state has a duty to determine at what point these people should die) and that this was all "perfectly normal and acceptable"

Growing old in this country is a risky business