Should spouses be allowed to commit suicide alongside their terminally ill partners?

main

A sobering story from Europe: It's been announced that the British conductor Sir Edward Downes died last week, alongside his wife, at an assisted-suicide facility in Switzerland. Lady Downes was in the final stages of terminal cancer; Sir Edward was ailing ("almost blind and increasingly deaf," according to his son), but his condition wasn't fatal. He just wanted to die with his wife.

Of course, "just" probably isn't a fair word to use in this context; it minimizes the enormity of the decision—not to mention the profound commitment that these two people, married for over five decades, had to one another. But then again, in some ways it feels like precisely the right word: What could be more natural, more simple, than this decision?

I keep thinking of Baucis and Philemon, the elderly couple from Ovid's Metamorphoses who are granted a single wish by the gods. (The story was one of the readings at an old friend's wedding last month, and it's been skulking around in my brain ever since.) In Mary Zimmerman's stage adaptation, the two old folks whisper for a moment, and then Baucis says to Zeus: "Having spent all our lives together, we ask that you allow us to die at the same moment." Philemon adds, "I'd hate to see my wife's grave, or have her weep over mine."

At the end of their lives, the gods grant their wish (in fine Ovidian fashion) by turning them into a pair of trees:

Baucis saw Philomen put out leaves, and old Philemon saw Baucis put out leaves, and as the tops of the trees grew over their two faces, they exchanged words, while they still could, saying, in the same breath: “Farewell, O dear companion”, as, in the same breath, the bark covered them, concealing their mouths. The people of Bithynia still show the neighbouring trees, there, that sprang from their two bodies.

It's the simplicity and directness of this description (taken from another, contemporary prose translation) that's ultimately so affecting. And there's something of that bracing quality to the Times' newspaperly account of the Downes' final moments:

On Friday, the [Downes'] children said, they watched, weeping, as their parents drank “a small quantity of clear liquid” before lying down on adjacent beds, holding hands. “Within a couple of minutes they were asleep, and died within 10 minutes,” Caractacus Downes, the couple’s 41-year-old son, said in the interview after his return to Britain. “They wanted to be next to each other when they died.”

The son goes on to say, “It is a very civilized way to end your life, and I don’t understand why the legal position in this country [Britain] doesn’t allow it.”

I tend to agree, but what do you think? Should the right to assisted suicide—if you even support the notion in the first place—be extended to the longterm partners of the terminally ill? And if so, how strict do we need to be about defining "longterm"? Should the partner have to exhibit some level of illness as well? What about a lifelong friend? Just how slippery would this slope become?

Photograph by Getty Images.

Tags: assisted suicide, edward downes, joan downes, ovid

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Nina Shen Rastogi California native, theater and comics fan, Slate "Green Lantern" columnist

Comments

Sigh

By: mustireallyweighin | Mon, 08/03/2009 - 22:32

How is my point "patently absurd"? I said, "that society should not sanction nor assist them" in suicide, and we don't. That just stating where we are at in our collective societal position? Unless I have missed something, feel free to correct my statement.

And correct you, I shall. If you define "society" as being the good old U.S. of A. and in terms of legality, you are correct. If you ignore all of the countries in the world where it's entirely legal and the many (many) times it happens "illegally" (it happens a lot more than you'd ever think) then a good chunk of the world population disagrees with you. (but it's ok to ignore their rights)

The reason this is not complicated is because, as a society, we have decided that we place value on "Fixing" people not eliminating them. Improving their condition rather than declaring they have no value and killing them. Once a society changes its mindset and comes to think that people have no value once afflicted with a certain condition, then it is foreseeable that pressures will come to bare for that person to be "Assisted" out the door. Who is going to draw the line that allows or disallows assisted death? I don't believe that line can be drawn, which is why uncomplicated to me and very easy to say that society (government) should not sanction or allow assisted suicide.

Ahh yes, the old "line in the sand" argument. Yes, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (i.e. in no country that allows assisted suicide are there massive numbers of people killed against their will) and things like the bill of rights, surely "fixing" people who can't be fixed and DON'T WANT TO LIVE ANYMORE is the best option.

Sure, terminal cancer...let's allow you to suffer for another six months...97 years old with no family and ill health, stick around...too many diseases to count, why not stick around for another shitty month until one of them gets you!

As I said, we place a premium on "life at all costs" and ignore the fact that lots of people (who are in a rational frame of mind) don't want to go on any more. All your prejudice does is either force them to get on a plane to somewhere caring enough to help, do it themselves or suffer. How about a little bit of dignity for people in pain and who seek and end?

Oregon

By: quinnreilly | Fri, 07/17/2009 - 22:32

Hey XX - Thanks, Nina, for raising this issue. Though I'm a little surprised that our one stateside example of sanctioning (yes, precisely that evil word, phpeter) assisted suicide hasn't been mentioned yet. The great state of Oregon actively sanctions assisted suicide in terminal patients. I believe the people of Oregon have approved this law not just once but twice by a direct vote. Surely there is still room for debate about where our society draws the line but at least the conversation has begun.

As the son of a former terminal patient, I can attest that assisted suicide looks like a blessing in the face of that prolonged suffering. Nevertheless, had my father chosen assisted suicide, there's no way I would have supported my healthy mother taking the same plunge no matter how deep their bond or how severe her grief. Had she been deaf, blind, and very old? Perhaps. Hard to say.

Society does need to draw the line somewhere and for now it seems safer to err on the side of terminal patients only. But remember that the state is not the last line of defense in testing the morality of an assisted suicide. Of course the patient and their immediate family must wrestle with the decision but so must their doctor (the "assister"). Due to the nature of the Hippocratic oath, few doctors will administer assisted suicide and at the very least their own judgment becomes a factor.

Since the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon conspicuously few patients have taken advantage of it (I think it's about a couple dozen a year). One needn't fear a rash of suicides; we tend to cling to life whether we're bound to by law or not.

Double assisted suicide

By: mlb | Fri, 07/17/2009 - 20:25

I truly do not want to live without my wife beside me. It's not about lonliness, or fear, or romance. The light of my life would simply be gone forever, and I don't want to be without her.

I don't expect the state to be part of this decision but the state ought not prevent it, either. If I have to pay for the help, I have to pay. But the help ought not be prosecuted for what is very personally our decision.

Just leave us to die the way we lived: gently, deeply in love, and profoundly together.

:)

By: phpeter | Thu, 07/16/2009 - 20:53

Why is this so troubling to people?

By: mustireallyweighin | Thu, 07/16/2009 - 14:52

"The point is that society should not sanction nor assist them. This is not a complicated issue."

Umm...exactly the opposite.

I always love it when somebody proposes a point of view that is patently absurd.

So, the quadriplegic who is in pain should be allowed to rot until he/she dies and cost the state millions in medical bills rather than deciding they want their "life" to end and having it done with compassion and care by experts?

As long as somebody is mentally competent, it's their choice and doctor's choosing to offer this service should be lauded.

Our society thinks of "life at all costs" and cares not a whit about quality of life. I remember when doctor's wanted to operate on my grandfather at 86. The fact that he was riddled with 3 types of cancer didn't seem to phase them. They figured they could extend his life by a month. Nobody in the family regrets telling them to screw off and let him die in peace.

The problem is the "assisted" part

By: CorkPopper | Thu, 07/16/2009 - 10:20

I have a problem with state-sanctioned assisted suicide, even for the terminally ill, and it's not because I don't think people have a right to choose the time of their death in these cases. The problem is that it's far too easy for me to envision morally questionable circumstances creeping in. Think of a woman, divorced, late middle age, always been the caretaker of other people in her life, but now diagnosed with cancer. She's depressed, alone, and doesn't want to "be a burden" to her adult children, emotionally or financially, so she opts for assisted suicide. Easy, clean, cheap, right? But here's the thing: she deserves better. We have a moral obligation to each other, not to dispose of the sick or the disabled, just because it's difficult. When we as a society declare that the state will assist people in ending their lives, we are making a statement that our society is sanctioning opting out of a difficult situation, and I think that's a problematic statment to make, ESPECIALLY since we have no right to health care. (Right to die but no right to be healed? Nice.) It will exert a certain pressure on people who are vulnerable already.

Suicide will happen anyway. Doctors will help anyway, they do already, and that's OK. But I am leery of state sanctioned suicide. In countries with a robust social safety net, it's probably OK, but here in the US, it strikes me as a bad idea.

You want me to explain why it

By: phpeter | Wed, 07/15/2009 - 20:46

You want me to explain why it doesn't make sense for us, as a society, to have assisted suicide for all people, healthy and unhealthy alike? Sorry, but it is insanity to beleive that there would be an assisted method for all people to take their lives. Fine, argue for the seriously ill, the pain ridden, the terminal folks who no longer want to go on, but you are arguing for ALL PEOPLE. I just wonder how this would work? Clinics? Hospitals? Who would even administer a suicide policy that allows anybody to check out at anytime? You speak about morality as if it is being imposed on you, but it has more to do with standards as a society regarding what we value than it does about individual morality. My morality has little to do with how you live your life, but our cultural norms and society standards impact all. Once we decide that lives, even healthy ones, are less valuable and able to be ended professionally, then where does that devaluation end?

And frankly, nobody is saying these people can't kill themselves, they are free to do what they want. The point is that society should not sanction nor assist them. This is not a complicated issue.

Money, money, money...It's all very practical

By: Jewellya | Wed, 07/15/2009 - 11:41

Dead people aren't counted in a census. Suffering people presumably can still vote, even if they don't care to. If, once we deem ourself a burden on our family or community, we cast ourselves off on the iceflow, presumably that would relieve the strain on resources for the rest of us. makes sense, right? Until you factor in the political aspect of money and tax allocation. If you lived in a district full of elderfolk (Miami anyone?) who all got the idea that instead of burning their childrens' inheritance on overpriced prescriptions and nursing care (health care conspiracy?), you wouldn't have much of a district left...who would fill the nursing homes that employ the younger nurses who spill their paychecks into the economy?
sickness is big business, you don't get repeat customers in funerals.

phpeter

By: weatherwax | Wed, 07/15/2009 - 11:12

Why wouldn't it make sense? Explain how it doesn't make sense. Explain how forcing people who are suffering through life to continue to suffer is somehow the best route to follow.
And claiming that anyone who suffers any loss will instantly be drawn to suicide is ludicrous. There are plenty of people for whom a loss does not instantly lead to wanting death. In fact, there are those for whom loss is a catalyst to living live more fully.
Frankly, whether we approve or not, suicide happens. People take their lives every day, often violently, often found by an unsuspecting loved one, often leaving nothing behind to ease the questions of a grieving family. This assisted suicide was peaceful, respectful. The Downes' were surrounded by their loving family who knew and accepted the reasons they chose death. It was a death-bed scene, with no jarring discoveries or painful "Ifs" "Buts" and "Whys". Only the pain of loss was left, and that is a pain that all of us must feel at some point when a loved one does eventually die. If only every suicide was so peaceful.

a reason why not

By: Vanessa | Wed, 07/15/2009 - 10:49

If you've ever heard the phrase "bad facts make bad law" then you'll understand the hesitation some of us have in supporting assisted suicide. I don't see any reason to have stopped this couple doing what they chose to end their lives- but to help them it means you might also help the woman who has spent her life in an abusive relationship and has been coerced into saying, and maybe even believing, that she can't imagine life without her abuser.

I'm okay with assisted suicide for people who are really gravely ill and in pain, but the other kinds make me a bit queasy. I'd rather people take that decision into their own hands instead of asking other people or the law to support their decision.

Til Joint Assisted Suicide Do Us Part