David Goodall: Dying in Support of a Media Campaign

In the last 48 hours dozens if not hundreds of newspaper articles have superficially covered the pending death via euthanasia of David Goodall, an 104 year-old Australian scientist. Described as Australia's oldest scientist, Goodall wants to die. To do so, he is going to travel 8,000 miles to Switzerland because assisted suicide laws in Australia are limited to those who are terminally ill. Exit International, a euthanasia advocacy group, has created a Go Fund Me page on behalf of Goodall. The Exit International website bemoans the fact Goodall cannot end his life in Australia stating it is unjust one of the nation's "oldest and most prominent citizens should be forced to travel to the other side of the world to die with dignity. A peaceful, dignified death is the entitlement of all who want it. And a person should not be forced to leave home to achieve it"."

Goodall himself has been repeatedly quoted in news reports. The most commonly used quotes are as follows:

I greatly regret having reached that age. I'm not happy. I want to die. It's not sad particularly. What is sad is if one is prevented. 

My feeling is that an old person like myself should have full citizenship rights including the right of assisted suicide. 

To be perfectly clear: Goodall is not objective nor am I. Goodall has been a member of Exit International for over two decades. He is good friends with the controversial founder of Exit International, Philip Nitschk. In sharp contrast to Goodall, I am opposed to assisted suicide. I am also a Board Member of Not Dead Yet, a grass-roots organization opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. The difference between myself and Goodall is that I am above board with my association with Not Dead Yet and views on end of life. Many newspaper articles fail to mention Goodall is a long time member of Exit International and advocate for assisted suicide and euthanasia. Almost all newspaper articles fail to discuss the fact the Goodall's desire to die is as much about advocacy as it is about his death. Goodall's impending is in reality a carefully crafted media campaign in support of euthanasia and assisted suicide pushed by Exit International. My first thought when I read about Goodall was this is an Australian twist on the Brittany Maynard media campaign orchestrated by Compassion and Choices in 2014. For those unfamiliar with Maynard here is a link to Wikepedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_Maynard      

The newspaper stories about Goodall uniformly support of his desire to die. The stories are puff pieces--the sort of human interest stories mainstream news outlets churn out on a daily basis. For example, a story in the Boston Globe began as follows:

Champagne bubbles danced in fancy glasses and birthday candles burned atop a cheesecake marking 104 years of a long and accomplished life. David Goodall listened quietly as his loved ones started to sing. Then he took a breath, made a wish, and blew out the candles. Link: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2018/05/01/scientist-just-turned-his-birthday-wish-die/kSl68UbczXxQIMtLOBHuNL/story.html?event=event25%3Fevent%3Devent25#comments

I never cease to be amazed by the never-ending stream of stories that praise and support those that want to end their life via assisted suicide. I am equally puzzled by the way end of life is routinely framed as a human right. I read again and again about people who want to control the circumstances of their death. We already have that right and, more to the point, death is not a right but rather a biological certainty. Any and all medical treatments can be accepted or declined. Any person can deny medical treatment that will result in the end of life. Hospice care can and is often provided. For zealots, VSED (Voluntary Suspension of Eating and Drinking) is a legal way to end one's life. I see no reason for legislating end of life legislation in the form of assisted suicide.

My opposition to assisted suicide makes me decidedly unpopular if not a threat to others personal autonomy. Somehow in opposing assisted suicide I am imposing my will and beliefs on others. Even polite criticism is met with the harshest rebukes. Opposition to assisted suicide is somehow seen as in bad taste--a characteristic of an unreasonable person. When I state my opposition to assisted suicide people are perplexed. Why they wonder would anyone be opposed to assisted suicide? Do I want people to needlessly suffer? Am I a heartless uncompassionate person? Some people become confrontational and nasty. I have repeatedly heard others tell me "Just because you want to live with a disability does not mean others want that life". Unsaid is the assumption my life is miserable and less valuable. Also unsaid is that I must be leading a life filled with pain and misery. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Given the cloak of anonymity, the real daggers come out for those that dare oppose assisted suicide. Death is a human right and disability is used to justify assisted suicide. Here I want to delve into the comments section in the Boston Globe article linked above. 

In the comments section one finds the following:

I know that when my mother lost the ability to read because of failing eyesight, a certain pall entered her life. Born in 1903, she was the oldest of thirteen (eight of whom survived), a woman with a sixth grade education who left school in order to help care for siblings. She was not a renowned scientist who derived what pleasure was left in his life by continuing to teach. Loss of sight, loss of the ability to securely move and loss of a sense of usefulness can certainly result.

When one commenter had the audacity to note the elderly were devalued and the article was a tragedy others responded with force.

Preventing by law anyone who is rational from making the decision to abridge his pain or shorten the dying process IS THE DEVALUING of the value of the individual....His life belongs to him and if he wishes to avoid another few years of disability that SHOULD BE HIS CHOICE. Do gooders saying he should be deprived of that choice and placed in a nice nursing home to be spoon fed...THOSE are the people devaluing this old man's value and standing as a rational individual.

you know what is MORE "devaluing"? Letting this man, against his own will, mind you, slowly decline into decrepitude, into being an invalid. THAT is devaluing his life more than anything else. You want to be respectful of the "value" of older people in society? Then treat them like cogent adults and respect THEIR wishes how they want to move on.

It is not about society, it is about ourselves. It is not about devaluing people who are elderly, it is about human existence and human choice which the government or church has no right to impose upon. This was not "an utterly tragic article", it was illuminating in helping people to be educated and be more informed in why some people may choose to die rather than live.

Aside from being blind using a wheelchair also justified assisted suicide.

he should be able to die now if he chooses to and not spend his last short time in a wheelchair, wearing a bib, Depends, and drooling into his lap.

Depression is dismissed out of hand:

He doesn't sound depressed, he sounds totally rational and reasonable to me.

You have outlived everyone you love, you don't have the physical ability to go or do, people treat you like you're mentally incapacitated, and you're not enjoying your days. It's up to you to decide you're over it, not the government.

It's ridiculous that he has to go to 8,000 miles to end his life. Sweet dreams!

In a comment that questioned the need for assisted suicide a person replied:

That's fine that you have your own opinions but don't try to label those that wish to have doctor services for dying with compassion...We simply have compassion for those who desire to die, you, on the other hand, want to judge others who you have no idea about...Why do you have to be so brutal with people you don't agree with?

When it comes to end of life people in my experience either ask all the wrong questions or do not ask any. I understand this to a degree. Americans are scared to death of dying. Too many die in nursing homes or hospitals. Our health care system does a dreadful job at managing death with grace and dignity for all involved. Here is what the average perosn fails to realize. In the words of Ira Byock, Director of Palliative Medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center:

In truth, my colleagues in hospice and palliative care represent the most genuinely Pro-Life segment of American society. An unwavering affirmation of life leads most of us to oppose legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia. But it is not about politics. It is simply that love of life--not in the abstract but love for the people we care for as patients--is the reason we do what we do. People who work in this field understand that to truly affirm life, one needs to affirm all of life--and that includes the part we call dying. 

Affirmation of life. All life. I, a severely disabled man, have a life worth living. This is not about politics. This is not about religion. This is not about imposing beliefs on others who feel differently. The dying have a right to live a good life until that is no longer possible. This is waht se should be talking about.