Decisions

A few days ago, film director Tony Scott committed suicide by jumping off a bridge in America. Initial reports indicated his primary reason for doing so was that he had an inoperable brain tumour, but that story is currently being brought into doubt. Whatever the reason was, Scott made a decision that was his alone to make, regardless of how grim it must be to have those life-ending thoughts. It’s a decision that last week was again denied to Tony Nicklinson, a man in England who has locked-in syndrome (he is virtually unable to consciously perform any bodily movements by himself); the British courts decided that to issue a ruling allowing doctors to assist suicide for those who are unable to help themselves, and avoid prosecution for it, was not for judges to decide upon. So if a doctor attempted to help Mr Nicklinson - and it would be help - they could still be arrested for murder. How preposterous! Judges and politicians alike are continually afraid to make moral decisions for fear of a reactionary (and probably religious) backlash - shame on them! But they can still manage to make controversial decisions where international political prisoners / asylum-seekers are concerned. Yes, Julian Assange will be ingloriously deported by the British government if he dares to step outside of the Ecuadorian embassy. And rest assured this has very little to do with sexual allegations from Sweden; Ecuador was happy to release Assange into Swedish custody as soon as assurances were given that it would not be followed by deportation to America for a Wikileaks trial (where even the death penalty could be considered!), but no such assurances were ever even negotiated by the British Foreign Office. Nowadays I usually have great respect for the U.S. government under President Obama, but the witch-hunt for Assange has got way out of hand.
How is it that so many decisions seem to be going so badly wrong? Or should I simply not be surprised anymore?

 

Poor judgement

Gordon Brown has stated for the record that he is against any new legislation to make assisted suicide legal. He says that the government shouldn't "put pressure on people to end their lives". But that misses the point. Making a law stating that someone who is severely ill or disabled (but who is unable to commit suicide due to that illness or disability) can ask somebody else to help with the suicide without fear of legal repercussions, is simply not the same as coercing somebody to take their own life. Brown's opinion that they are the same thing reeks of political spin in an attempt to avoid getting too deeply involved in something that could have a detrimental effect on his popularity. It is not as if a law would result in people killing others and then using the defence of assisted suicide as an excuse to get away with murder! The law could easily be implemented around an institution like the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland where professionals and counsellors are on hand to ensure that the person wishing to die is in no way being manipulated into it before giving them the means to end it all. But of course, Gordon Brown stated these opinions when in discussion with Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor (who for some reason always insists that his middle name is reported in news stories!), the head of the Catholic Church in England; I should have known that the dubious morality was coming from the religious lobby and decadent scripture; it's just terribly unfortunate that the Prime Minister of a country is so easily manipulated himself. Perhaps Brown is worried that if he did pass an assisted dying law someone would convince him to commit suicide. Or perhaps politics and religion are just far too intertwined for the occurrence of any social progression.