The right to die
Pedagogical suicideOleg Lischuk, MedNovosti
The film was directed by the Canadian director, Oscar winner John Zaritsky. The debate about the ethics of such a broadcast began even before the broadcast, now they are continuing with renewed vigor.
59-year-old Evert, a former American professor who moved to the British city of Harrogate, North Yorkshire, after retiring, suffered from a rapidly progressive motor neuron disease since April 2006. Within a few months, the disease caused complete paralysis of the trunk and limbs, and he was transferred to artificial lung ventilation (ventilator).
Not accepting his condition, Evert decided to use the services of the Swiss Dignitas clinic, which provides terminally ill people with the opportunity to commit suicide. On September 26, 2006, in the presence of his wife Mary, he drank a lethal dose of phenobarbital and with the help of a special device turned off the ventilator with his teeth, which led to a painless death in 45 minutes. During the whole process, the invited film crew conducted a video recording. Before committing suicide, Evert made a small speech in front of the camera, where he said that he did not want to die, however, since death was still close, he wanted to save himself and his family from torment.Politicians, doctors and journalists took part in the controversy that unfolded on the basis of the broadcast of the film.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown believes that it is impossible to allow a situation in which a sick or elderly person will consider committing suicide under pressure from society or the media. Brown also stressed that he had always been against the adoption of a law allowing assistance in voluntary retirement. He expressed hope that the TV company is aware of its responsibility to the audience and will show maximum caution in presenting such a controversial topic, avoiding inflating unhealthy sensations.
Peter Saunders, director of the anti-Euthanasia Care Not Killing Society, spoke more categorically, calling the program a cynical attempt to raise television ratings. He believes that such shootings "convince people of the existence of a life that is not worth living."
The representative of the supervisory authority Mediawatch-UK, John Beyer, added to the above that he doubts the justification of broadcasting a real human death on television, and the main concern is the adverse effect of such screenings on the viewer.
The point of view of the opponents of the broadcast is not shared by everyone. Evert's wife Mary (Mary Ewert) stated that, in her husband's opinion, he had the right to end his life on a day determined by himself, instead of prolonging the suffering for himself and his loved ones. She also added that the desire to videotape this event manifested the teaching essence of her husband: he wanted people to receive objective information about death and realize the importance of issues related to it.
A unanimous positive assessment of the film was given in their publications by the former head of the UN Medical Department and former board member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society Michael Irwin, Sky News reporter Ursula Errington and a number of journalists from leading British publications. They acknowledged that the film was shot strongly, decently, tactfully and emotionally enough, but without grotesque, tasteless, unnecessary sentiment and exploitation of human death. According to the collective opinion, the documentary, on the one hand, is an occasion to think about the possibility of such a situation in everyone's life and the need to have their own position on this. On the other hand, it carries the very objective information that Craig and Mary Evert wanted to give the viewer. In addition, as follows from the publications, the film was an excellent example of the strength of spirit of both spouses, as well as their children. The authors emphasize the importance of the fact that the shooting and broadcast were carried out with the full consent of the entire Evert family.
Barbara Gibbon, who heads the Sky Real Lives TV channel, argues that the broadcast is justified by the fact that at present the issue of the human right to decide on retirement is particularly acute. In this regard, now more than ever it is necessary to provide objective information on this issue to both supporters and opponents of voluntary euthanasia.
It is noteworthy that Zaritski's film (then it was called "The Suicide Tourist") has already been repeatedly shown at film festivals in different countries and was broadcast last year on Canadian television, but it did not cause such a heated debate as in the UK.
Whatever it was, the hype caused by its broadcast on a British TV channel will not fail to attract additional attention to questions about the legality of euthanasia in general. It will also be an additional advertisement for the Dignitas clinic, although, of course, there was no such goal for the creators and inspirers of the film.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://www.vechnayamolodost.ru/12.12.2008