Voices: Defending Switzerland's 'right to die' law
GENEVA — When news media last week reported the story of Gill Pharaoh, a 75-year-old British nurse who committed suicide in Switzerland on July 21, I had an uneasy feeling of déjà vu.
That’s because every widely publicized “right to die” case sparks not only a firestorm of controversy, but also raises the same question: Was the person’s pain unbearable enough to justify taking his or her own life?
In Pharaoh’s case, the news reports said she had no terminal illness and wished to die merely because she was afraid of aging.
I don’t personally know people who chose to end their lives the same way as Pharaoh did — by ingesting a lethal dose of barbiturates in a Swiss “suicide clinic.” And, not having walked in her shoes, I can’t weigh in on whether such a radical act is cowardice or courage. But, having written a number of articles about Switzerland’s uniquely liberal “right to die” law and followed the public debate on this subject, I do know that when it comes to assisted suicide, there isn’t a “right” or “wrong” answer.
That’s because pain and suffering are not measurable — and even less so, when they are someone else’s.
In Switzerland, helping someone die for selfless and humane reasons is not considered a crime as long as certain rules are respected. Patients must be mentally and physically capable of making the decision to die, not coerced and able to take the physician-prescribed drug themselves. If a third party administers the drug, the act is considered euthanasia, which remains illegal here.
No other nation has such a lenient law. In the United States, only four states allow doctor assisted suicide: Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Montana.
Foreigners like Pharaoh constitute about a third of about 1,400 people who opt each year for assisted death through one of Switzerland’s right-to-die organizations. These cases have prompted the media to call Switzerland a “suicide destination.” Clearly, this is not the kind of tourism boom that authorities want to promote, but the attempts to regulate the right-to-die industry, and especially to limit the influx of patients coming from abroad, have failed.
In a referendum held in 2011 in Zurich — where the majority of cases take place — 78% of voters opposed a ban on assisted suicide for foreigners. A year later, 62% of voters in the Canton (state) of Vaud, approved a law that requires continued-care facilities and nursing homes to permit assisted suicide in their facilities.
As a result of this widespread support, the issue of death with dignity is not a lightning rod of contention here as it is elsewhere. In fact, the Swiss have a remarkably rational approach to this decidedly emotional and sensitive subject because they regard it as a personal matter of self-determination in which the government should have no say.
This brings up the often asked but rarely answered question of what, if any, role should society at large play in what is essentially a private decision.
When I analyze this particular topic from a purely human, rather than a journalistic, point of view, all kinds of contradictory feelings emerge. Taking one’s own life is such a drastic and irrevocable step that a part of me cringes at the mere thought of it. But on the other hand, if we are indeed masters of our destinies, then the manner in which we choose to die should be a personal decision.
Interestingly enough, we do not deprive our sick and suffering pets of a merciful death. Isn’t it cruel not to extend the same compassion to human beings?