“Shaking hands with death” – Terry Pratchett gives the Dimbleby Lecture
Assisted dying has been back in the news recently, with two different personal cases tugging the media’s attention in different directions.
Last night, humanist and Distinguished Supporter of the BHA, Terry Pratchett, gave the Richard Dimbleby Lecture. He was the first novelist to give the lecture and his subject was assisted dying. Due to complications arising from early onset Alzheimer’s, the lecture itself is given by “stunt Pratchett”, the actor Tony Robinson.
You can see the lecture on the BBC iPlayer.
The main form of the lecture’s argument is available though the lecture itself contains some more personal stories and asides.
Pratchett speaks movingly off his father’s slow death and how things might have been different, if he and the nurses and the doctors not been locked into a law which forbade a better way.
His rallying charge – “My life. My death. My choice.” – receive heartfelt applause.
He goes on to propose a tribunal mechanism for the insurance of compassionate and moral treatment of applicants (“horrible word”) for assisted dying. He refutes the counter-arguments that trust of doctors would decline or that vulnerable people must be protected (“as if no one else thinks that”) declaring that there is no evidence of a slippery slope in states where assisted dying is already legal. He rejects also the “God argument”, saying:
“I am a humanist … We do need people in this world to remind us that we are all human and humanity is precious. It’s that much heralded thing: the quality of life that’s important. How you live your life, what you get out of it, what you put into it and what you leave behind after it. We should aim for a good and rich life, well-lived, and at the end of it in the comfort of our own home in the company of those who love us, have a death worth dying for.”
As we’ve mentioned before on HumanistLife, Terry Pratchett spoke to the British Humanist Association last year on assisted dying and that video follows below:
"Shaking hands with death" - Terry Pratchett gives the Dimbleby Lecture,
17 Comments
Trackbacks
- Cristina Odone “loathes” Terry Pratchett | HumanistLife
- Wiltshire man says that the report of the Commission on Assisted Dying does not go far enough « Choice in Dying
I watched this on the BBC when it was on TV the other night. Pratchett’s thoughts were inspiring, heartfelt and above all common sense. The lecture was beautifully read by Tony Robinson – it is a must watch for any Humanist.
I agree with Mike’s comment. But I thought that Pratchett’s suggestion of a tribunal to consider cases of assisted dying was crazy. There would have to be not one but many tribunals to deal with all the many potential users and it would be a lawyers’ paradise. He mentioned Oregon and assisted dying (with adequate safeguards) is also legal in Belgium, Holland and other states. We should allow it here.
Watched this and agree with the above comments – but hopefully it reached many more people than those who know we are humanists already!
A wonderfully thoughtful lecture, and should be watched by everyone. A well balanced argument, and I agree with Martin that tribunals would be a lawyers paradise, and why should anyone make money out of this. Sitting on the lawn, listening to an ipod with an expensive brandy sounds a much better way to go than most experience in these circumstances. It’s choice, and our One Life is a series of choices that with have to live with or die with.
Masterfully written and excellently performed,
Well done Tony and Good Luck Terry. :’-)
I hate to dispell the cosy 21st century concensus, but I wish to express my profound disappointment (as a humanist) in the fact that two such intelegent people as Tony R and Terry P should have lent their support to such a dangerous and antihumanist turn of events.
This is not the place for a lengthy exposition; suffice it to say that, as a disabled person, I remember where state sponsorred assistance with deth can lead. I will resist the emergence of anything that looks smells or sounds remotely of fascism in what ever form, and wherever it appears. Low self-image, powerful proffessional influence and misguided sympathy are serious allies of the dark forces of economic pragmatism. Let the debate focus on assisted living (denied to so many) rather than on assisted dying.
Sorry folks, but, again as a humanist and avowed athist, I prefer an alliance with organised religeon to one with disorganised random misguided fellow nonbelievers.
To Rory’s description and list of attributes of fellow unbelievers (disorganised, random, misguided) I’m adding niaive and ill-informed.
Many disabled people live (as in ‘life’) day in day out with these issues and questions. Many have done so from birth. I say from birth because birth is when the assisted dying ‘question’ is first raised, framed in terms of (you’ve guessed it) kindness and compassion. We don’t get into questions such as what would the baby choose. No, these things are decided by others…
Nowadays the focus has shifted to the other end of life. But the arguments are the same – not based on fact, reality or experience but fear and ignorance. Oh, and economics as well. Money. Resources.
This clamour for easier (assisted) suicide takes place against a backdrop of economic catastrophe where the cost of assisted living is unaffordable, fact. So, kill the useless eaters, but let’s not call it killing. No need. Simply keep going on about the TERRIBLE drain on the public purse and, in the same breath, keep saying how AWFUL it is to be old/disabled/in pain/dependent on others. By constant association (conflation) the two ideas merge. Now we have one problem. Brilliant. We know what the problem is and who to blame. It’s a short step to identifying the solution: reduce costs and relieve suffering in one go. Job done.
That takes care of the miserable old people dribbling on the mat. But what about that sweet little baby gurgling in the crib? What sweet little baby gurgling in the crib?
Those who know the mental torment of pain where each day and night are a nightmare. Those who say they do not have a choice to live or die should put themselves in their shoes. It is alright to say you are against some one deciding whether they want to continue in agony or not. Everyone who says it is not their choice, should go and sit with them and see what they will say then. Unless of course suffering does’nt affect you and who say it is ‘god’s will’ and so think they deserve to suffer, perhaps for what they did in a previous life eh.
My body is my body and does not belong to anyone else. I of course would think of the suffering I would cause my family, but surely they would be pleased that my suffering had ended. Like I was with my Mother.
this is surely not a discussion about the rights of individuals to end their own live. It is a much needed debate about the legal and moral propriety of others assisting them to do so, recently expanded by the aledged (self-confessed or self-professed) actions of BBC journalis Ray Gosling in ‘killing’ a former partner to relieve him of intolerable suffering).
The awkward problem for our so-called liberal society is that it is inconveniently regulated by law. The law, as far as I understand it, doesn’t look favourably on individuals going around killing each other. It calls it murder, or manslaughter at least, and, thus far, (apart from the case of war – but that’s another issue), regards it as about the most serious crime anyone can commit.
The latest flurry (fast becoming a torrent) of media reporting in Britain on this issue is almost universally sympathetic to a growing number of individuals who have indulged in or assisted other people’s deaths, preparing the ground for legislative changes which will radically change the relationship between individuals, their rights and responsibilities, and the termination of human life.
I personally don’t think that it is wise to apply the rationale of animal welfare to human beings; I say this in the context of having a loving Mother, who, when it was discovered that her baby (me) was totally blind and that there was no possible cure, was on several occasions comforted by people advising her that it would be better if I were to be ‘put down’!
Now there’s a lot wrong with my life, but there’s also a lot right with it, and something deep inside me is scared shitless of that kind of compassionate comfort!
Sorry Ray, but you are not doing the cause of human life and improving it any good by your self-publisist confessions!
Nor are the BHA either! I fail to see how it can be a humanist objective to support the ending of life on the basis that one individual deems it appropriate for another to die, whatever the circumstances. I invite Professor Dawkins – who I admire greatly as an Athist and scientist (with his BHA hat on)and Steven Fry (a recent convert to the compasionate marching band) to join this debate and to discuss these issues in public debate with disabled people.
I will post details of an intended event as soon as date and venue have been decided.
Watch this space.
Rory Heap
to join
We had some discussion on this at the Hastings Humanists meeting last night.
It has always seemed to me that it is very easy, for anyone who is really motivated, to be able to commit suicide by umpteen efficient methods, even for those severely disabled. The need for assistance therefore applies only to a very few cases, and the question of doing it in a “dignified” aesthetically pleasing manner that upsets as few people as possible is an entirely secondary issue.
The more I read of proposals to formulate or reformulate the laws governing this process, the less I find the arguments for “dignified dying” to be practicable or desirable. The involvement of the law should be minimal. As it presently stands there seems to be a reasonable balance between the doctor’s judgment and the fear of prosecution. Pain is an inevitable part of human experience, and stoicism is an important element in humanist belief.
Well said George. Elaine, pain is my constant companion and has been all my life. I’m now 60 years old and I don’t expect the pain will get any better. The thing is, it’s got absolutely nothing whatever to do with the quality of my life – there are many other factors affecting this. I accept pain is part of my life. Pain is not the issue. As for putting oneself in another person’s shoes, this is a misguided and potentially dangerous idea. Anyone who thinks I’d be better off dead is saying more about themselves than about me. We should be talking about supporting and empowering people to demand assistance to live with dignity and to die naturally.
To those using the “I’m disabled and this is about society trying to kill me off” argument, please understand that there’s a *huge* distinction here between “putting down” babies and a mature adult of sound mind taking their own decision that their life is no longer worth living. I really fail to see how that is anything but crystal clear.
Deborah, i’m delighted for you that you’ve found a way to live positively despite your pain. Please don’t use your experience to make other people’s decisions for them – not everyone is like you. Personally, I find that pain, illness or debility have profound effects on my mental state and am 100% certain that I couldn’t achieve any sense of wellbeing in that condition – and I want to be able to make my OWN choices as to how I deal with such a situation if it became necessary. This is about respecting the right to choose – and mine might be to die, just as yours would be to live; by saying I feel i’d be “better off” dead, that does not mean I believe you would be!
Kate,
I tried to deal with your point when raised by an earlier contributor.
I would certainly defend anyone’s right to choose whether or not to end their own life. But firstly we are not talking about the person who chooses to die, we are talking about the person who claims they have been appointed by that person to assist them, or in Ray Gosling’s case, takes it upon himself to smother his partner because he judges it is ok to do so!
And even that isn’t the central point of what i am concerned about; the real danger in all this is the climate of concensus developing around it being a legally ok thing to do to lessen the number of disabled people on the plannet. The view which myself and Deborah are wanting to pursue (particularly with the BHA and other fellow humanists) is the balance of presentation of the issues in the media, and the formal position taken in formal consultations which leads to the potential expenditure of vast amounts of energy and resources on death when so many older and disabled people are denied the choice to live dignified and meaningful lives. Denied by the social care deficit, rationing, and an increasingly paranoid and head in the sand bunch of economists and policy makers who would rather cut taxes and get elected than ask society to properly resource state pensions and high quality paliative care when it is needed. Why do we have to rely on charity for so much of this? What’s wrong with supporting assisted living as opposed to assisted dying?
I’m sixty too, and I’d rather think about the rest of my life (even when it gets difficult) than how and whether I will or can give someone else the responsibility of ending it for me!
Humanism should be about defending, preserving and celebrating human life.
That’s the clear blue water I need between inteligent human thought and dangerous religious mumbo jumbo!
Now is the time for disabled people to assert their fundamental human rights to live in dignity, in the manner of their choosing, and to die naturally. The choice of an assisted death needs to be responded to as a cry for help, and that help should be freely given – this would be real compassion. A reformed law that encourages death as a solution to any of life’s problems would be a dangerous step, not backwards because we were more ignorant in the past than we are now. This would be a deliberate step towards putting into practice something much darker and more sinister, something that has so far only been imagined and written about in books. From today the world is a more horrible and dangerous place because of the way human beings choose to use their power. Not to care, but to kill. And don’t anyone tell me that killing can be kind. If you do it will make me want to be extremely and violently kind.
assisted living is nice if you got some people and a home that cares very much to its occupants ‘~”