‘If assisted-dying legislation had been in place, my sister may still be alive.’
A matter of life and death: Mike Wash has a personal take on assisted dying
‘Surely a kinder and more-loving approach would have been to help her die with dignity.’
Although there is currently no unity among British Quakers on the subject of assisted dying, I sense a move in our Meetings towards favouring legislation that results in a safe, humane and kind way of helping people choose to die on their own terms.
Following a Threshing Meeting, a deeper sense of conviction has emerged in my own beliefs and hopes on the subject. My personal experiences have indeed coloured my views, and I lay these here in the hope that open discussion in the Quaker community can be encouraged.
At the age of fifty-one, my mother (Frances) suffered a subdural haematoma following an accident (I was twenty-two at the time, so this was forty-seven years ago). She was left in what could be described as a vegetative state, although her eyes were open. She was fed by a naso-gastric tube, and she responded to pain. There was no speech, just groans, and we were unsure as to whether she was aware of her surroundings but unable to respond or communicate. Her limbs became contracted, and she was nursed on her side, groaning when she was moved or bathed, or when the sores between the folds in her skin were treated. Frances was in this state for three years. The post-traumatic stress, in a loving family who visited daily, remains today. Eventually, she contracted pneumonia, and a decision not to treat the infection was made. She died uncomfortably. Surely a kinder and more-loving approach would have been to help her die with dignity, surrounded by her loved ones, before she embarked upon three years of torture?
At the age of twenty-five, my sister (Veronica) chose to die. For seven years she had struggled with kidney failure. I was a nurse at the time, and was able to help her with home dialysis. She was fortunate to have received a transplant during this time. But my sister’s lifestyle meant that caring for herself and her new kidney was not her priority, and the inevitable rejection occurred. She was left yet again facing the prospect of dialysis. In order to be attached to a kidney machine she needed access for the needles to connect to the machine. This was achieved through creating a shunt in her arm. Unfortunately, the previous shunts she had used had failed, and she required an operation either to repair the one in her arm or create another access site in her groin. Veronica also had hepatitis, which made any intervention related to blood a risky procedure.
It was also mooted that, because of Veronica’s lifestyle, choices, and history of rejection, she may have had to be on dialysis for some time, since she would be lower down on the waiting list for another kidney.
Veronica refused further treatment, and stated clearly that she would rather die. This was supported by the medical team. Despite my objections and challenges, and appeals to look for alternatives, the battle was very quickly lost. From making the decision in hospital, to being discharged into our care at home four days later, she died within twelve days.
My thoughts are this: if assisted-dying legislation had been in place – requiring safeguards and medical and psychological protocols, as exist today in many parts of the world – my sister may still be alive. There would have been a statutory second opinion, psychological assessment, counselling for all concerned, and a minimum timeframe to ensure all avenues and consequences and alternatives were considered. Who knows, within this process she may have found a reason to live.
Assisted dying is legal in Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and in ten states in the USA.
My first career was in nursing. In these fifteen of practical care, I nursed many people through terminal illness. Assisted dying in some form went on, and probably still goes on today, to ensure the dying person dies in comfort. This is often done without the knowledge of the family or the patient, and usually only after some suffering is apparent. Would it not be kinder and more respectful to discuss with everyone concerned, in a planned way, what would be best for the patient?
I hear the concern, the conscientious objection, of Quakers who never want to take a life. But I have difficulty comparing conscientious objection in the context of war to the situation of helping someone choose to die through love and kindness.
I do understand the concerns of the vulnerable, who may feel threatened by the very existence of an assisted-dying option. Yet I also know that, through appropriate and robust safeguards, built into professional protocols, many vulnerable people would gain more support, not less.
In 2020, Meeting for Sufferings, in encouraging Meetings to discern on this topic, guided us by saying: ‘Our understanding of that of God in each person enables us to consider what love requires in each individual circumstance rather than leading to a united response… We do not necessarily expect to come to unity: a failure to unite is not a failure. There is a value and a beauty in being able to find neither for nor against; but what love requires – and to ask questions. Our explorations need to be respectful and loving, and we need to be aware that our position is often one of privilege.’
The Assisted Dying Bill is currently at second reading in the House of Lords. The Health and Social Care Committee is also holding an inquiry into assisted dying, and will report at the end of this year. The proposed bill may not go far enough – it is proposing assistance only for those with terminal diagnoses with a six-month life expectancy – but it’s a start.
I pray and hold all those in the light who are working towards doing what’s right for our society. I hope at the very least we talk more openly about death and dying, and that living wills, and advance care plans in the event of terminal illness, can become less of a taboo. Instead it ought to be a welcome step towards a humane, respectful, kind and loving death.
Comments
Meeting for Sufferings came to the very wise decision to minute that they did not necessarily expect to come to unity on the issue of assisted dying. Any pronouncement on this emotional and divisive subject will inevitably lead to the loss of significant numbers of members who are not in unity with it. It is to be hope that Meeting for Sufferings will not discuss this subject again.
If Quakers had supported the now discredited “Liverpool Care Pathway” the reputational damage would have been enormous.
By Gareth E on 27th July 2023 - 17:32
Please login to add a comment
