August 17, 2005
GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEE, NOT FOR ME:
Euthanasia law forces woman to starve to death (Paul Marinko, August 4, 2005, The Guardian)
A woman who was born with a debilitating disease has gone on hunger strike in an attempt to end her life.Kelly Taylor, from Bristol, said that starving herself to death was the only legal way she could end the pain and misery resulting from her rare heart condition.
Mrs Taylor, who cannot walk more than a few metres and is dependent on pure oxygen to breathe, had been waiting nearly 10 years for a heart and lung transplant, but was taken off the list two years ago after doctors told her that a match would not be found.
She was told that her condition would deteriorate and that there was no medication or treatment which could help her.
The 28-year-old said she was determined to take her own life and starvation was the only way she could kill herself legally.
"I decided this was the only way I could do it because of the laws in this country, which are against euthanasia," she said.
"It just felt like the right time to do something about my life and because there was no law to help me die, I thought I would have to help myself."
Fears that her husband, Richard, 47, could be prosecuted in the UK for helping her die led Mrs Taylor to reject travelling to a country where assisted suicides are legal.
She said: "The law needs to be brought into the 21st century.
"People want to die with dignity. That's all I want: some control and dignity."
Woman ends 'right to die' food protest (Richard Savill, 13/08/2005, Daily Telegraph))
A 28-year-old terminally ill woman who went on hunger strike as an act of voluntary euthanasia has ended her protest after 19 days because of intense pain. [...]Mrs Kelly ended her protest on Thursday night by eating a small amount of apple-puree baby food.
She told the Bristol Evening Post: "It has become too uncomfortable and I would not wish what I have been going through on my worst enemy.
"I feel disappointed in myself. I really wanted to die and that seemed to be my only option. I regret that I have to stop what I am doing because I still want to die. But starvation, as it turns out, is very undignified."
It seemed like so much fun when I wanted to kill others that way. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 17, 2005 12:00 AM
Funny, I had heard that it was a painless, even euphoric way to die. Huh.
Posted by: Timothy at August 17, 2005 12:49 AMGee, I've heard that too somewhere.
Posted by: Dave W. at August 17, 2005 1:19 AMBut you would support her right to jump off of a bridge, right ?
Speaking of which, why doesn't she ?
There are smarter ways for a free person to kill one's self than starvation.
For starters, she obviously has access to pure oxygen; add a flame, and...
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 17, 2005 1:55 AMShe could die of natural causes. But that's too shameful I guess.
Posted by: RC at August 17, 2005 2:50 AMThis poor woman lives but streets away from me, so I find it more difficult than you fellows to treat her appalling situation as a joke.
On the other hand...what the hell was she thinking?
Posted by: Brit at August 17, 2005 4:28 AMBrit:
Steady on, now. Do you really think we are laughing at this one? I'm sure her proximity to you adds to the upset (Good!), but we deal in ideas here with a certain caustic, irreverent style that masks, for good reason, our personal lives. You have no idea whether or how this touches anyone else here personally and you shouldn't assume you do.
What was she thinking? No idea, but if I were forced to bet (and she is compos mentis), I'd wager she is in a milieu where family, friends, the medical profession and her society are, directly or indirectly, emphasizing to her the sanctity of her personal choice about her future and their unwillingness to grab hold of the situation, tell her what is to be done and care for her to the best of their ability as a loved and precious one. In other words, she may be being given everything except the right to be dependent without guilt. She may also be in Princess Diana mode and desperate to "make a statement" and gain immortality through the notion that her tragedy and affliction can be a basis for social improvement. ("If I can prevent just one person from living this, it will all have been worthwhile.") Can't blame her for that, for what else is on offer? But it's a cold and lonely fate, isn't it, and not one without an element of cruel pathos.
Just surmising.
Posted by: Peter B at August 17, 2005 6:49 AMMichael:
No, not her right. If someone saw her they'
d have a right to stop her, not she to make them let her go. We just can't realistically stop someone who's serious about killing themself. She isn't.
Pete:
Given that ethanasia enthusiasts want to do this to their family members, this is funny:
"I would not wish what I have been going through on my worst enemy."
Posted by: oj at August 17, 2005 8:56 AMPeter:
She's frequently been on the local TV news here - which gives a different perspective than the black and white of these newspaper reports.
She's eloquent and headstrong - there's no noticeable sense of being pushed into it by her family, least of all her husband.
Posted by: Brit at August 17, 2005 9:50 AMWhich of recent history's most anti-human monsters wasn't eloquent and headstrong?
Posted by: oj at August 17, 2005 10:01 AMGiven that our society is so eager to diagnose mental disorders, and so quick to dispense drugs, why is there no recognition that this woman's disease and pain have left her mentally unbalanced? She needs both appropriate physical and mental treatment, and shouldn't be discarded just because she won't live to be a grandmother or because her sickness is making her wish for death.
Posted by: b at August 17, 2005 11:12 AMBecause those around her want her out of their hair.
Posted by: oj at August 17, 2005 11:16 AMThis whole situation is just strange to me - she's lived for over 10 years with the condition, and according to her own experiences with starvation there are more uncomfortable and painful states to live in than her current state of being. Why is she so desperate to die?
Even if her life is painful, difficult, and perhaps on its way out can't she find a better way to spend her time than trying to end her own life. My aunt suffered from a horribly debilitating and incurable stomach cancer for 5 years but she accomplished so much good in the short time she had left. There is a great deal of selfishness going on here and not just on the part of the poor woman.
And she needs to get off the martyr pedestal - tens of millions of people suffer and die every year from chronic disease - she isn't more special than any of them.
"We just can't realistically stop someone who's serious about killing themself."
The old coroner once told me that men who are serious about killing themselves suck on a .38, the rest of them are just drama queens.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at August 17, 2005 1:02 PMWhat, are there no highway bridge abutments near her?
That and a .38 are the two sure ways for someone who is serious.
Posted by: fred at August 17, 2005 1:23 PMShe could just go for a jog
Posted by: Dave at August 17, 2005 2:28 PMAbout dying of starvation, I heard the following on a talk show last week. The subject was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and whether it saved lives.
The host said that many people in Japan would have starved to death if the war was prolonged for much longer and the moonbat guest agreed that would be the case, but that dying of starvation was preferable because it was natural.
erp:
Nukes are just a fetish for the Left, like cargo planes for Papuans.
Posted by: oj at August 17, 2005 4:00 PMYeah Dave, sounds like something ratbert might say. :)
Posted by: jdkelly at August 17, 2005 4:17 PMShe didn't even stick around for the ketosis?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 18, 2005 2:11 AMBrit:
Don't ask me. Ask them.
But let's talk types rather than individuals. You say she is eloquent and headstrong. Who isn't, or rather doesn't pretend to be? That's how we are all trained--just watch talk shows and reality TV. Everyone wants to be a Cindy Sheehan or Pincess Di. Suffering a affliction or tragedy privately is now seem as cowardly. It's now a ticket to celebrity status, and weak and pathetic is the soul who doesn't rise to the occasion to demand social change.
We had an old guy here suffering from terminal something-or-other a few months back who decided to do himself in. Hired a lawyer, called a press conference and announced his intentions in more detail than anyone wanted along with a stream of bile against the government, society, etc. His "loving" family were all there. Two days later he did it. Everyone stood by mute and respectful and spoke of his courage.
In this month's Atlantic Monthly, there is a strange article about a woman who left her husband and kids and wrote a self-congratulatory book about how wise and liberated she is. The journalist was obviously uncomfortable, but wouldn't condemn her and sought to "understand". Turns out they had previously lost a three year old to cancer. The article goes on at length about that and how they stopped her treatment and brought her home to die. I wouldn't second guess that one for anything, but do you know what the main basis of their decision was. It was the little tot's choice.
Posted by: Peter B at August 18, 2005 7:22 AMPeter:
I find this woman's attitude baffling and strange, too. I don't get it any more than you do.
I'm not sure if it's the case that people don't want to suffer these things privately anymore, however.
We don't get to hear about the ones who suffer in private because they're...suffering in private. And that's 99%, surely.