A few months ago NDTV begun a public conversation on euthanasia. Those against it valued life to be very precious and special and argued that no one should have the right to take it away. Those for it argued that the body at a particular state has lost its humanity (read: dignity) and it would be cruel to let them suffer and be humiliated in silence. After all, if death is imminent, should we not make it painless and quick(er).
What both positions love to hold on to is the notion that life needs to be preserved for some reason or the other and that death is pure negativity. Fine, fair enough. You don’t need a reason to argue for it, and any debate between pro and against usually pans out to two poles: those who love, affirm, care, celebrate life and those who are fascist monsters with genocidal mentalities. Not much can be done from there. The former are more theological the latter are more atheist. Fair enough. It’s only a debate.
On a not entirely unrelated note, these are the sorts of words that make a young man fall in love with Foucault…(from)
So let’s see what there is to say in favor of suicide. Not so much in support of legalizing it or making it ‘moral’. Too many people have already belabored these lofty things. Instead, let’s say something against the shady affairs, humiliations, and hypocrisies that its detractors usually surround it with: hastily getting boxes of pills together, finding a solid, old-fashioned razor, or licking gun store windows and entering some place pretending to be on the verge of death
In my opinion a person should have the right not to be rushed, which is very bothersome. Indeed, a great deal of attention and competence are required. You should have the chance to discuss at length the various qualities of each weapon and its potential. It would be nice if the salesperson were experienced in these things, with a big smile, encouraging but a little bit reserved (not too chatty), and sophisticated enough to understand that they are dealing with a person who’s basically good-hearted, but somewhat clumsy, never having had the idea before of employing a machine that shoots people. It would also be convenient if the salesperson’s enthusiasm didn’t stop them from advising you about the existence of alternative ways, ways that were more chic, more your style. This kind of business-like discussion is worth a thousand times more than the chatter that goes on around the corpse among the employees of the funeral parlor.
So, following up from my previous post on the matter, we can hope that one day the day will come when suicide reporting becomes a page-3 phenomenon or greeted with the joy of a film opening in Juhu.
Oh wow, it was that very NDTV debate on euthanasia that got my goat (for reasons I don’t completely understand but have decided to trust and explore further) and made me write my post on Abdul Raouf for SMC. Now, reading this and your previous post especially, I am struck by all of this all over again. Suicides and poverty. Poverty and abnormality. Poverty and spectacle for the media. The 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s and reporting. From print and a more cohesive public sphere to electronic media and a disaggregated public sphere. From melodramatic national anguish and hand-wringing on pressing ’social issues’ (remember the three girls from Kerala who hanged themselves because their father couldn’t put together a dowry?) to the seemingly disembodied clinical voice in news studios discussing euthanasia, speaking of suicide as an individual case study rather than as a case study of a social issue. Thanks for your posts. Very thought-provoking.
i couldn’t agree more. so much money and time is put into cultivating a child after birth- why do we not have more tools readily available for cultivating an elegant death? Whether a planned suicide or for someone very close to death (where the line between natural death and a slightly hastened death is rather thin)…we live in times where a highly juvenile and embarrassed feeling exists surrounding what could become something even festive. Let me relate one of my favorite stories about dying which has always made me believe it possible to die not only with dignity but with a sense of elation and even control over the exit.
Aldous Huxley died while on LSD. That is, while dying, he requested an injection of LSD. Rather than being an urban legend, this event is well-documented in Albert Hofmann’s book, LSD: My Problem Child:
“Aldous Huxley died on 22 November of the same year, on the same day President Kennedy was assassinated. From Laura Huxley I obtained a copy of her letter to Julian and Juliette Huxley, in which she reported to her brother- and sister-in-law about her husband’s last day. The doctors had prepared her for a dramatic end, because the terminal phase of cancer of the throat, from which Aldous Huxley suffered, is usually accompanied by convulsions and choking fits. He died serenely and peacefully, however.
In the morning, when he was already so weak that he could no longer speak, he had written on a sheet of paper: “LSD-try it-intramuscular-100 mmg.” Mrs. Huxley understood what was meant by this, and ignoring the misgivings of the attending physician, she gave him, with her own hand, the desired injection-she let him have the moksha medicine.”
for a more detailed version of the story as well as a clip of his wife describing his death click on my site the dreamatists
All’s well and swell with euthanasia and assisted suicide and Foucault’s ironic and tongue-in-cheek remarks about the self-annihilation shelves in the supermarket.
I am a bit surprised, however, for a person such as Foucault to take sometimes such an uncritical approach to suicide. This is to say, taken on a massive scale, how would the question of suicide/euthanasia be sheltered from the same power-politics of society as other such forms of body control such as insanity, criminality …
I think one possible analogy here could be towards sterilisation, which - in effect - we could see as the euthanasia of unwanted future generations. Euthanasia avant le lettre. It is a voluntary procedure, sure, but there has been a long history of forced sterilisations happening in India and elsewhere with the poor but also in the West regarding gypsies and other minorities.
This said, the risk I see with popularising suicide / euthanasia on a mass scale that it too can easily get warped into the power structures of society and can, in the worst case scenario, became a means of control of the mass populace. The unfit can be morally allowed to die. Morally here there is a fine line with accepting euthanasia and accepting eugenics, which I think needs to be taked about.
I suppose the question we have to ultimately decide here, as Sunalini hinted at, is the question of human choice, which is a tough philosophical one. This is because I find it a bit strange that when we talk about suicide we only talk about the voluntary glory of people such as Aldous Huxley, who - in their radicality - choose to die using LSD because they are sick.
But should we also administer LSD to the thousands of Indian farmers killing themselves to make them cool? Or the clinically depressed person? Or the teenager whose girlfriend left him?
What makes Aldous Huxley the guru and the farmers the victims?
Perhaps the question here is not whether or not it should be legal but where it should be legal. The old guns discussion resurfaced…do the guns kill or do the people? it is safe to legalize guns in canada but not in the usa. is the same true of suicide? I don’t know. But I bet those farmers who hanged themselves would have preferred to be able to take a pill that made them happy and peaceful on their way out then one that snapped their necks off. Dunno. Maybe that’s just my own personal preference.
Also with the question of legality there is the question of it becoming less of a big deal to be suicidal. Often part of the hard time that people who wish to die face…is the fact that they wish to die. Imagine you are on your death bed and you just want to get it over with but your family is giving you all kinds of guilt on top of that because you feel that way. the irony is that society is mean to suicidal people. which always helps with the conviction that death provides relief.
I can envision the world you describe though…imagine if all the indian kids during exam season were each given a death pill in case they’d rather die than fail. I’m sure that would increase the number of deaths dramatically.
So…hmm…maybe like booze- underage kids should not be allowed to purchase tools to assist suicide. But then that hardly makes sense because there are so many kids out there who are in need of euthanasia…so does that mean their parents have to decide on their behalf (like when they let their kid get a tattoo) …but then that would hardly help the population of girl children in India… one little cold and they get to pop a death pill…
so I guess what we’re talking about…again…is murder. Murder should not be allowed. But what constitutes murder? Is legalization of suicide assisted murder? hmmm…dunno.
perhaps at the end of the day its simpler not to reason how and why and just go jump off the nearest bridge.
still you have to hand it to Foucault…he knew he was going to get AIDS from having his wild way in all those bath houses but he did it anyway….death by wild fornication…
incidentally check out the following link for a list of ways to kill yourself depending on your zodiac sign…Horror Scopes
All the issues could be resolved if only Pro Choice advocates were given the same opportunity to influence governments that are provided to the Pro Life advocates. Linked to the churches at a hierarchical level but not to the common people, Pro Life advocates have the money and resources to influence, threats (by withdrawing the support of their congregation) the physical ability to link like minded people into a mass of objectors, by networking already in place.
It is well known that until a person has a personal circumstance which influences their end of life choices, most will opt for a “pro life” simplistic solution. Suicide is not for the faint hearted, and I can’t imagine that the act of it, is taken likely. For the people I speak on behalf of, the pro euthanasia lobby, mostly people are too sick and frail to help themselves, so continue to suffer unnecessarily a prolonged unwanted life.
Mary Walsh
http://www.yourchoiceindying.com
an Australian activist for Pro Choice for the Individual
All the issues could be resolved if only Pro Choice advocates were given the same opportunity to influence governments that are provided to the Pro Life advocates. Linked to the churches at a hierarchical level but not to the common people, Pro Life advocates have the money and resources to influence, threats (by withdrawing the support of their congregation) the physical ability to link like minded people into a mass of objectors, by networking already in place.
It is well known that until a person has a personal circumstance which influences their end of life choices, most will opt for a “pro life” simplistic solution. Suicide is not for the faint hearted, and I can’t imagine that the act of it, is taken lightly. For the people I speak on behalf of, the pro euthanasia lobby, mostly people are too sick and frail to help themselves, so continue to suffer unnecessarily a prolonged unwanted life.
Mary Walsh
http://www.yourchoiceindying.com
an Australian activist for Pro Choice for the Individual