Without having seen the programme it is perhaps also hypocritical of me to pass judgement on it. As I won't be in the country tonight to watch it I can only go on what I know.
To show the moment of death is perhaps the ultimate in reality television. It's one of the last TV taboos. I'm profoundly uncomfortable with showing it, if only because it could in theory tacitly encourage others to follow the path of assisted suicide.
But in the end one has to believe in the right, and power, of individuals to make decisions like this for themselves. LibDem MP Phil Willis said on the Today Programme that "you can't trust individuals to make these decisions" - which shows how illiberal the LibDems have become.
Clearly the state has to make laws in the area of assisted suicide, and it's right that these laws should actively discourage it, for obvious reasons. I could never vote to legalise assisted suicide. But I also would encourage the DPP to be very selective and sensitively judged in its enforcement. We all know that doctors and family members are making decisions in our hospitals every day about whether to switch off life support machines or to continue to administer life continuing drugs. These decisions may not be wholly comparable with assisted suicide, but they lead to the same result. The decisions effecctively put individuals out of their misery in the same way in which assisted suicide does..
Broadcasters also have a huge responsibility when commissioning documentaries on this subject, especially if they show the actual moment of death. So to that extent, the Mail is right to highlight it. On balance, I wish Sky were not showing it, but without having seen it, it is difficult to be 100% sure that they shouldn't.
If I were here tonight, I don't think I could bring myself to watch this programme. That's my choice. I would choose not to use the 'on' button. And whenever I encounter programmes I might find distasteful and have a gut reaction of wanting to ban, I always remind myself that the 'off' button is there for a purpose.
Sometimes it is good to find a sturdy fence to sit on! Discuss.
23 comments:
I won't watch it. It's that simple.
I won't be making a fuss, I won't be getting upset, I just won't be watching it.
You see my TV remote has this thing called a button, which has the letter "P" printed on it. So, my advice to the telegraph and anyone else who feels as uncomfortable about the whole thing as I do is: respect the wishes of the family. Respect the integrity of the documentary maker and the broadcaster and just exercise your right not to watch. It's on Sky, so it's not like we're being forced to pay a TV poll tax for it.
Surpised it hasn't been banned from our screens. Glad it hasn't though. As stated, if you don't want to watch it, don't. I don't mind if you do or not. I probably won't because I'll be busy.
It's not like there are a shortage of channels now for you to switch to. Pushing the boundaries of television is good.
Perhaps we'll get later term abortions on TV also ?
Not sure we need a whole range of snuff documentaries.
However the documentary showing a man's death was educational, and lets face it interesting as we all have to pass through some version of it.
I wouldn't want to see it become common place though.
Phil Willis was talking for himself - not the Liberal Democrats!
I can see no reason why death cannot be broadcast, if the true face of sordid death was shown from Iraq and Afghanistan on our TV screens, these wars would have ended years ago.
If death was not shuffled off into a corner, and we pretend we are all going to live forever and look young (courtesy of Gok Wan, plastic surgery and half a ton of slap)we might all actually be nicer to each other for a change.
I am not sure what the shock horror is all about, is it the actual process of death, the rational suicide of an intelligent man who would prefer not to choke to death as he loses the ability to swallow.
The only certainties are Death and Taxes, as a Libertarian I can do something about the Taxes, not a lot I can do about the Grim Reaper other than accept it as the natural order of things.
"it could in theory tacitly encourage others to follow the path of assisted suicide"
That implies that the footage shows a peaceful end. What's so wrong with that?
I'd rather go that way than wasting away, driven mad by the agony of cancer, my body corrupting and my organs failing one by one, whilst doctors stick pipes and needles into me to pump in medication, to extend my agony and humiliation.
What's better? What's more dignified?
The film's being broadcast to cater to the needs of the snuff movie community and a precedent was set when Saddam Hussein was hanged on air.
The people who watch it will be the same people who like watching/making exaggerated
oo-isn't-it-awful programmes about child abuse, paedophilea, sex education, grim medical conditions, prostitution and domestic abuse.
Unfortunately for the viewing public most of them work in the media.
I don't want to watch it, but I support it.
I want the choice of whether to die with dignity at a time of my choosing, or to potentially languish for years sitting in a high-back chair dribbling, incontinent and in pain.
If it is to be legalised, let parliament do it. Delegating it to the DPP is cowardly.
The whole problem with assisted suicide is that the basic premise is wrong.
Death is of the body. The being is immortal. All these statements "It's the only life you've got" are wrong. Almost only Christianity (as perverted since Christ) enforces this nonsense, even though they also celebrate their founder's arising/re-birth at Easter ! Illogical.
Alan Douglas
wv fulaties
"I could never vote to legalise assisted suicide. But I also would encourage the DPP to be very selective and sensitively judged in its enforcement."
I like having the rule of law, where I know in advance what actions are likely to get me punished by the state. At the same time, the government should want its citizens to have that knowledge, in order to maximise the law's ability to deter crime.
If you keep assisted suicide illegal, but direct the DPP not to prosecute in certain circumstances, the courts will find that you have breached the defendants' right to a fair trial. Suppose a defendant tells a court that, under your guidelines, the DPP should not have prosecuted. What is the court to do? They can only consider the law, not the guidelines you gave the DPP. To get out of this, they will say that the defendant cannot have a fair trial and they will halt proceedings.
Lawmakers shouldn't say, "X shouldn't be punished but I don't want to know about it." That is abdicating responsibility. I could imagine an MP from an earlier age saying, "I could never vote to legalise... Ahem... As long as I don't have to hear about it... This is buggery we are talking about after all!"
Daily Mail readers have an IQ of 5,000. Shared between the million or so readers.
Those who quote the Daily Mail have lower IQs.
I have little time for those who bleat on about human rights this, human rights that. But in the case of assisted suicide I do think that it should be an individual's absolute right - in the appropriate circumstances, like terminal and debilitating disease - to 'pop off' when they choose, rather than have that decision made (or not made) for them.
I don't think that is much to ask when you're in a desperate cul de sac with no hope of recovery or cure. It could be your last chance to exercise a little control over your life.
I also agree with some of the other commenters that if you've got an issue with seeing assisted suicide documented on the telly, switch it off or switch over.
I think Man in a Shed has already hinted at the way it is going.
First, it is not "sitting on the fence" to use the "off" switch. You have made a decision, a fairly unequivocal one.
Secondly, I don't believe in going down the road of legislating what can and cannot be shown on TV, provided I am not paying for it and minors are protected.
Thirdly, there is a depressing tendency to equate what happens on TV with real life. I disagree with those who say death should be shown because death is part of life and the reality of it should be included in our daily diet.
Let us get this straight. TV is NOT real. It is a digital, two dimensional, single sense medium which is neither real time or real scale. Anyone who thinks TV inculcates some kind of authentic life experience is misguided and to be honest, a bit sad.
I have lived now for almost two years without a TV. I would like someone to prove I am somehow missing out on real life.
Colin at 8.47
What you said. Sums it up perfectly.
A very difficult subject and, for me, a very emotional one.
My father was in the late stages of cancer and asked me to end it for him.
I didn't but I often think back and wish I had the courage to do as he asked - to give him a small amount of dignity - something which was rapidly ebbing from him.
I cannot believe we have the right to deny someone the ability to end their life at a time of thier choosing albeit after a great deal of discussion and counselling.
"Assisted Suicide on TV"?
I'd watch it if it was mad Gordon.
On PMQs he told all and sundry that he has "saved the world"
Someone please put him out of his misery!
Members of the medical profession like to say that they don't want to end up a dribbling idiots in a hospice. I know at least one who put a little something aside and his sister, also a doctor, administered it at his request when all other avenues had been exhausted and there was no hope left.
But that's not the same as broadcasting it on TV and sleazebags making money out of filming it and airing advertising round about it.
I think there may be some misunderstanding here as SKY have specifically said that they will not show the actual moment of death.
On the wider issue, there is principle of freedom of choice to be considered. I believe there is no God and if I am in terminal illness and pain I would wish to end my life peacefully for my own sake as well as that of my loved ones.
Christians and memebers of other faiths may believe otherwise. That is their choice and I respect their belief.
I just ask that they in turn respect my belief.
Brian PW. Just to correct a factual error there, given how quickly people like to jump on the "there is no God" bandwagon. I believe in God and I believe that if people wish to alleviate months or even years of suffering by ending it all, they should do so. I would and i am prepared to argue the toss with the Almighty Himself.
And I am not telling you anything about how you should run your life or your belief system, so condescending digs at us are a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
I caught the news item by accident on Sky this morning and thought it was slightly "inappropriate" and not done in terribly good taste, but what made it worse was, it was repeated over and over again...
I thought Brianpw's post was very even handed and sensible.You only have one life,it is yours to do with as you see fit.Not the government,religion or anyone else.It often sounds like the medical profession have a competition to see who can be kept alive the longest.
I have not had a tv for over 20 years so will not be watching it but agree it should be shown.It sounds like a very compasionate programe.If it means more will die peacefully instead of making a hash of it,all to the good.
speaking of "last tv taboos" I'd say my top three would be
1. a baby getting eaten alive by badgers
2. someone taking a dump right onto the camera lens
3. Tony Blair performing a sexual act on Gordon Brown
Someone dying on tv just doesnt cut it these days does it...
Post a Comment