By request, a husband shoots his terminally ill wife; he’s charged with manslaughter

June 22, 2019 • 1:10 pm

This New York Times story raises a moral conundrum. Click on the screenshot to read it:

The upshot: Lori Conners, 61 and a resident of Connecticut, was terminally ill with metastasized ovarian cancer. She also suffered from Lyme disease, which apparently conflicted with her chemotherapy regimen, making her very sick. She had been married to her husband Kevin for 40 years, and had four children and six grandchildren.

Lori wanted to die. As the Times reports,

She was “constantly” writing suicide letters, he told investigators, who found 13 such letters in the couple’s home, including three on her nightstand. When she was found, Ms. Conners “didn’t have much head hair,” the warrant noted, because of chemotherapy treatments.

. . . The two [Kevin and Lori] talked about taking razor blades to her wrists or getting the tranquilizing drug Klonopin. They debated going to Vermont, where the terminally ill can legally be prescribed medication to die, but she wasn’t a resident. Last summer, she tried using the sleep drug Ambien and whiskey, but did not overdose.

Connecticut doesn’t have an assisted dying provision in its law, although there is one stuck in the state legislature.

If they had that law, what happened wouldn’t have happened, and her husband wouldn’t be charged with manslaughter. Afraid that if she shot herself with the couple’s .38 caliber gun she’d botch the job, Lori asked her husband to do the deed for her. He shot her in the head last September, killing her.

But then he tried to make it look like a suicide, changing clothes, putting the gun on the pillow beside Lori’s body, and washing his hands and changing his shoes, which had blood on them. He told the cops that she had killed herself, but such a ruse is easily dispelled, and he quickly confessed to having shot her at her request.

Kevin Conner now faces manslaughter charges, and could go to jail for many years, all for helping his wife end her life.

Is this just? Well, he did lie to police and try to cover up what happened, and that is both wrong and illegal. On the other hand, that’s what one has to do to help a dying loved one make their exit in states where there are no assisted dying bills.

But were I on the jury, I would find him not guilty, nullifying any law that what he did was illegal. That is because there is almost nothing to be gained by finding him guilty.

I see three purposes to punishment: sequestering a person who might hurt others, attempted reformation of criminals, and deterrence of others from doing similar deeds. The first two don’t apply here: Kevin was not by any account a bad guy who needed to be removed from society, and he doesn’t need reformation.

As for the third—deterrence—there is a case to be made. One can envision “slippery slope” arguments involving killing invalids or dying people who don’t want to be killed, and then claiming that they really asked to be killed. Lying to police doesn’t help matters, either. It would have been much better for Kevin and Lori for her to have written a document saying that she requested to be killed, preferably with witnesses (but they would likely be accessories to the crime). But the suicide letters mentioned above show her state of mind.

I would still vote “not guilty” were I on the jury, and perhaps Kevin will go free. Of course I ask readers to weigh in below. How would you vote?’

But these sad situations are the result of states and countries refusing to pass assisted-dying bills (only a few states in America have them). People are thus forced to either linger in unspeakable torment, as did Lori, or take matters into their own hands; and if anybody helps them die, they’re accessories to a crime. This should not have to happen.

 

A woman who lost her faith deals with the death of her son

June 1, 2019 • 11:45 am

This piece by Amber Scorah in today’s New York Times tore at my heart, arousing all sorts of emotions that I’d prefer would stay dormant. Fear of mortality, fear of loss, frustration at not being able to believe what might make me feel better, and so on. This is the gamut of emotions that Scorah ran after she left her faith and then lost her son, a boy who died without apparent cause, simply stopping breathing while at daycare.

Scorah used to be a Jehovah’s Witness, one of the most all-consuming, odious, and dictatorial of the Abrahamic faiths. She became an atheist at 18, and thereby experienced yet another pain: the destruction of all her JW beliefs, including the conviction that you’ll see your loved ones in a post-death Paradise.

Click on the screenshot to read this moving cri du coeur:

There’s another problem for nonbelievers like me: we’re simply unable to comfort the bereaved by telling them that their loved ones are in a “better place,” and that they’ll reunite some day. Believers can do that sincerely, and the believing bereaved might thereby be consoled.  All I can do is express condolences, and, if I knew the deceased, give an anecdote or two about how I remember them and how I cared about them. That sounds like the useless tinkling of small bells.

Or you can say say “they’re not really dead, because they’ll live on in your memory,” but to me that rings false. Memories are not living people you can talk to, touch, and love. Lacking belief in an afterlife, atheists have no hope of ever meeting the deceased again. Yes, you can remember the good times, and be grateful that someone was in your life, but those memories are always mixed with sadness. I’ve lost two of my best friends, and, if I live, I will lose more. Often I forget that they’re gone and want to tell them something. “The Red Sox won the Series, Kenny!” And then I remember that he’s not here to hear it and get angry (he was always a Yankees fan).

Yes, it would perhaps be better to believe, though I’m told that believers die harder than do atheists, and maybe every believer harbors a doubt at the end that this is a true end. But our dilemma, or at least mine, is this: I cannot force myself to believe something that makes no sense, however consoling it would be. And that is also Scorah’s dilemma:

I was moved by these words from strangers. And I wanted to believe these messengers who told me my son lives or will live again. Perhaps these were the people we in my old religion called prophets and apostles — people who dispatched words of hope to those in distress.

But though they were sincere, none of what they said was true. There is no heaven, no door at the end of my life that I will find my boy behind, no paradise Earth. He simply had ceased to exist.

I suspect that these people rushed to save me because, deep down, somewhere unacknowledged, they too knew the truth. We all know that there is something desperately sad that we have to protect one another from. Our stomachs know it, our spines know it. Our humanity doesn’t want to let us believe that this is all there is, that a child can just disappear. And that is why these strangers cared so much about a stranger like me.

What I had not anticipated about the cost of losing my faith was that it would no longer be possible to deceive myself. I could no longer make a pact with any higher being. No hours of service could convince a God that I deserved to have this child again. Whatever I had done to deserve him once, I was not worthy of him twice.

I am not saying there is no God, but I am saying no God would do this to someone.

I don’t know anyone who gave up their faith in God and regained it, but I hear there are such people. It will not happen to me. Scorah’s last line is brutally honest and yes, she is saying that there is no God—at least no god worth worshiping.

She goes on:

If I could believe even a little again, perhaps it would happen to me, like it does to other people. Their dead come alive, appearing at bedsides on dark nights, or as voices in the wind. These voices tell the grieving ones that they forgive them, that they love them, that they are somewhere else, they exist, and all is not nothingness.

If belief were a choice, I might choose it. But it’s not. I don’t trade in certainty anymore. If there is something more, it’s not something we know. If we can’t even grasp how it is that we got here, how can we know with any certainty where, if anywhere, we go when we die?

Well, we sort of know how we got here: through the formation of planets out of the Big Bang, and then the evolution of humans on one of those planets. That much we can learn from evidence. We can’t know what happens after we die, but here the absence of evidence does constitute evidence of absence. If there is a god, as Delos McKown said, he’s arranged things so it looks very much like there is no god. “The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”

Scorah has found a silver lining in death, as many atheists do:

But death without hope also makes one acutely grateful for life, sensitive to it. In the absence of my son, I felt the presence of love all around me, from these strangers and friends alike. And then came my son’s little sister, with a smile and fingers just like his.

I wish I could feel this way. Yes, I’m grateful for life, but also greedy for it. I don’t want to die in ten or fifteen years. The show will go on, and I want to see what happens. Many readers here have said that they wouldn’t want to live forever: they’d get bored. But Ceiling Cat, is it too much to ask for another hundred years?

Here is Scorah’s book about leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses, click on the screenshot to see it at Amazon:

G. H. W. Bush “passed”?

December 2, 2018 • 6:00 pm

Humans have many ways to circumvent the reality and finality of death. Besides all my friends who are eating kale and quinoa to stave off the Reaper as long as possible, there are simple semantic fixes. When I visited Cornwall in 2005, I noticed that many gravestones in the local cemetery preceded the date of death with the line “Fell asleep on. . . “.

Twice today, in news reports about the death of George H. W. Bush, they used the euphemism “passed” for “die”—not even saying “passed away”. This one irks me a wee bit, as its blatant avoidance of the stark word “died” is so obvious. And it’s a bit ambiguous as well. Passed what?

When my mortal clay expires, I hope they’ll simply say, “Jerry Coyne died”.

By the way, I see Bush as a fundamentally decent man, totally undeserving of much of the hatred I’ve seen on social media (you can see a particularly noxious specimen here). This spewing of venom over political differences, to the point of gloating that Bush is “writhing in hell”, is just another instance of the kind of churlish behavior I discussed earlier today.

If the deceased was evil or hurtful to others, like Jerry Falwell, then it’s okay to denigrate him after death, though I’d ration that kind of hatred carefully.v(Postmortem hatred may indicate you aren’t such a nice person yourself.) But Bush was no Falwell; the hatred we see is based solely on political disagreements.

Suicide is not a “selfish” act

June 10, 2018 • 9:00 am

A fair number of people are criticizing Anthony Bourdain post mortem by claiming his act was “selfish”: the implication being that he should have thought about the people he’d leave behind (including the critics) before doing the deed.

This is not only selfish on the part of the critics, who make their own feelings the center of attention, but also ignorant about what many who contemplate suicide are really thinking.  From my own experience and talking to others, I gather that they’re not thinking, “Wait a minute: maybe I should think about the the people I’ll leave behind. They’ll be devastated.” In reality, most, I suspect, are thinking, “I”m in pain and I want it to end.”

The same goes for those, like Rose McGowan, who claim that the suicidal person is thinking “The world will be better off without me.” I suspect that’s not common, either.

I have no patience for those who have only anger for those who kill themselves, or who tut-tut about the selfishness of the suicide. Sadness, bafflement, empathy—those are more rational emotions. Anger is corrosive, as are accusations of selfishness. And remember, even with drugs and counseling, and the help of good friends and loved ones, not everybody can be helped. (I am not, of course, advocating that you don’t try to help someone in trouble.)

To see how one can make a suicide about oneself and one’s feelings of anger instead of about the deceased, have a gander at actor Val Kilmer’s incoherent rant on Facebook.  A few excerpts:

#anthonybourdainisdead
Oh the darkness.

Oh the dark thick pain of loss. The selfishness.

How many moments away were you from feeling the love that was universal. From every corner of the world you were loved. So selfish. You’ve given us cause to be so angry. A spiritual guide once told me suicide is the most selfish act a human can execute and I was confused but she explained there’s just no mental place further away from humanity and purpose than the hypnotized numbness that creates the false picture of despair, that forces the victim, unaware, to believe, life’s legacy is over. That there is no more service. No more task. No more love left to give to another to to be given. Nothing to heal.

. . . . o what? I hear you took your life in paris. What hotel? Did you relapse? Did you just get home from the best meal of your life? Did you cheat on your girl. Those of us that knew you are shocked and angry and angry and angry selfishly angry, for what you just did to us. Millions I should think. At least a million people like me who imagine they know you. Some imagine they know you even well. But you heard that phone ringing, you felt it buzzing in your coat or pants pocket, vibrating a million times, but you didn’t answer it. You let it ring out. Did you bleed out? Did you suffocate? Did you jump. No you didn’t jump. Is it important we know how you did it? No. But that you did it. One of the tentative titles of my new studio is Bourdains.

You could have and should have given it one more shot. Sometimes we must live in service to another’s life and live with no hope of equality. Life isn’t fair that way. Who says you had a right to take away all this love from us so soon? Oh the darkness. The darkness on the edge of town.

Theres a lot more, but it doesn’t show much sympathy for Bourdain, a man worthy of great respect who must have been in great pain. All Kilmer’s rantings do is show what a jerk Kilmer is.

Here are some nice tributes:

https://twitter.com/evanrachelwood/status/1005160318073430016

Thought for the day: On mental illness and assisted suicide

June 9, 2018 • 10:00 am

The suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain have made me realize again how strongly the media and society regard every suicide as in some sense a failure: a failure of the deceased to get help, a failure of the caregivers to give proper help, or a failure of friends and family to notice a problem.  In general, I agree—but not always. Certainly those who have recognized suicidal tendencies, or who have been severely depressed, should be made aware of the opportunities for help, and everything should be done to provide that help.

But this doesn’t always work. Despite drugs, therapy, and so on, some people in tremendous mental distress are not improved, and simply want to end their pain by ending their lives. I don’t think that in every case we should say “they shouldn’t kill themselves.” The pain of severe depression can be so strong, and so persistent, that the sufferer feels it’s better to end the pain than to live with an incurable mental illness. Is this really so different from a terminal cancer patient in unbearable physical pain who wants the pain to stop? I don’t see how—not if every attempt to fix things has failed. After all, unbearable physical pain causes unbearable mental pain.

The Netherlands and Belgium allow people with severe psychiatric problems and suicidal ideation to undergo euthanasia, but of course only under the strictest medical and legal vetting. This has in fact happened; the story of a depressed 29-year-old who was euthanized in the Netherlands is here. (It’s in the Catholic Herald, and of course suicide is a sin in Catholicism, sometimes a mortal sin.) The idea that you’re going to hell for killing yourself is one of the many repugnant views of the Vatican.

You can also get legal euthanasia if you are old, in declining health, and yet don’t have a terminal disease. That was the case for 104 year old Australian scientist David Goodall, who peacefully ended his life in the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland, simply because it was becoming too difficult for him to live. In effect, he was allowed to be euthanized because he was distressed at the thought of his decline.

There are at least three reasons to allow physically healthy but severely depressed people—people who have tried every recourse but failed to improve—to undergo euthanasia. The first is that if we don’t give them a peaceful death, they may well try to kill themselves in a messier, more painful, or even an unsuccessful way.  And that is traumatic for family and friends, who aren’t allowed to be there in countries that don’t allow euthanasia (you can be charged with “abetting a death”). Why not die peacefully and legally, in the presence of those who care about you?

The second is that knowing you can get barbiturates if you qualify may be the very thing that keeps you alive. I know of one 24 year old Dutch woman who qualified, but changed her mind when the doctor was on the way, and it’s likely that knowing she had that alternative is what gave her the strength to go on. You can see a video about her here. This change of mind apparently occurs in about 25% of people approved for euthanasia in the Netherlands on mental-health grounds.

Mainly, though, who are we to judge that someone in unbearable and untreatable mental pain must be kept alive at all costs? It seems to me that if you meet the criteria various enlightened nations have set out for euthanasia, severe mental illness should qualify—so long as the person is sentient enough to make that decision. Some extremely depressed people, after all, are compos mentis and simply don’t want to live.

Before you weigh in, watch this story (the mental illness caused “somatoform [physical] pain). I also recommend your watching the video about the Dutch woman in the link above.

***********

ADDENDUM: Actor Rose McGowan made a lachrymose video about Bourdain’s suicide (below).  This seems to me the wrong reaction: Rose McGowan put this on her Twitter feed, expressing anger at Bourdain for killing himself and for thinking the world would be better off without him (I don’ t think this is something that most suicides even think about).  It’s also horribly solipsistic (she’s since taken it down, but it’s on the news and everywhere in the media).  But most relevant for this post, it assumes that depression is always a “temporary problem”. It isn’t—not always. And anger at someone who kills themselves is a corrosive emotion: how can you know why they did it?

Yes, publicizing suicide hotlines is a good idea, but the job of those hotlines, as you may know, is to keep people alive. Most potential suicides could indeed use that kind of intervention. But as I’ve just said, not everyone should be forced to stay alive at all costs.

On accepting death: scientist David Goodall ends his life at 104 through self-assisted suicide; Barbara Ehrenreich gives up on preventive medical care

May 21, 2018 • 12:30 pm

As we grow older (and by “we,” I mean “I”), one’s thoughts tend naturally to turn to mortality. The comparison of your age to that of those listed in the paper’s obituaries becomes a depressing habit, one gives up beloved foods and behaviors in an effort to stay alive as long as possible, and you realize that the time that has passed since you were 40 is longer than the time you have left.

So it’s somewhat heartening, then—though I can’t get there myself—to hear about older people who are sane but have just decided to either die or not engage in the usual measures to prevent getting ill. And two people have done it in different ways.

As this NYT article notes, Australian ecologist and botanist David Goodall, 104, who was working and active right until recently, grew upset at his worsening health and loss of independence, and just decided that it wasn’t worth it to live any more. Unable to kill himself in Australia (he tried but failed, and there are no laws in Australia allowing assisted suicide), he took off for Switzerland and, with the help of the group Dignitas, turned on a machine that injected barbiturates into his veins. (Another option is to drink a barbiturate containing solution). He died on May 10.

I suppose if I were that debilitated, I might just be weary of life. What keeps me going are things to look forward to, and if those are gone there’s no point in living. (I’m not nearly there yet!) At any rate, I admire Goodall for his tenacity and, especially, his complete lack of a fear of death. One quote from the Times piece:

Asked if there was anything he still wanted to do, he said: “There are many things I would like to do, of course, but it’s too late. I’m content to leave them undone.”

Pressed about what he would miss, he allowed, “I have been missing for a long time my journeys into the Australian countryside, but I haven’t been able to do that for quite a while”

He was asked about his last meal. “I’m rather limited in my culinary enjoyment nowadays,” he responded. “I don’t find that I can enjoy my meals as I used to.”

On Thursday, he received a fatal dose of a barbiturate intravenously. In order to comply with Swiss law that bans the interference of third parties in the process, he opened the valve to release the solution himself and fell asleep, dying soon after. Some of his grandchildren were with him in his final hours, Exit International said.

He wanted no funeral and no remembrance service, and he asked that his body be donated to medicine or his ashes sprinkled locally, according to Exit. Mr. Goodall did not believe in the afterlife, the organization said.

How would he like to be remembered? “As an instrument of freeing the elderly from the need to pursue their life irrespective,” he said at the news conference on Wednesday.

At one point, he was asked what tune he would choose for his last song, and he said the final movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. Then he began to sing, with verve and vigor.

According to Mr. Nitschke, Mr. Goodall did end up choosing Beethoven, and he died the moment “Ode to Joy” concluded.

My “going out” music would be Richard Strauss’s appropriate song “Beim Schlafengehen” (“At the time of going to sleep”), with Jessye Norman’s incomparable rendition (here). Readers are invited to submit what kind of music they’d like to hear when they were dying.

Second, well known author Barbara Ehrenreich, who is 76, wrote a provocative essay that’s gotten some attention. She’s decided to give up all preventive medical care and not worry about her diet and exercise so much because she’s “old enough to die”, and sees no point in prolonging a long life with expensive medical care, or even preventive tests. It’s an essay worth pondering, and I agree with some of it. Have a read by clicking on the screenshot:

A few quotes:

“In the last few years I have given up on the many medical measures—cancer screenings, annual exams, Pap smears, for example—expected of a responsible person with health insurance. This was not based on any suicidal impulse. It was barely even a decision, more like an accumulation of micro-decisions: to stay at my desk and meet a deadline or show up at the primary care office and submit to the latest test to gauge my biological sustainability; to spend the afternoon in faux-cozy corporate environment of a medical facility or to go for a walk.

. . . I also understood that I was going against the grain for my particular demographic. Most of my educated, middle-class friends had begun to double down on their health-related efforts at the onset of middle age, if not earlier. They undertook exercise or yoga regimens; they filled their calendars with upcoming medical tests and exams; they boasted about their “good” and “bad” cholesterol counts, their heart rates and blood pressure. Mostly they understood the task of aging to be self-denial, especially in the realm of diet, where one medical fad, one study or another, condemned fat and meat, carbs, gluten, dairy, or all animal-derived products. In the health-conscious mind-set that has prevailed among the world’s affluent people for about four decades now, health is indistinguishable from virtue, tasty foods are “sinfully delicious,” while healthful foods may taste good enough to be advertised as “guilt-free.” Those seeking to compensate for a lapse undertake punitive measures like fasts, purges, or diets composed of different juices carefully sequenced throughout the day.

. . . Once I realized I was old enough to die, I decided that I was also old enough not to incur any more suffering, annoyance, or boredom in the pursuit of a longer life. I eat well, meaning I choose foods that taste good and that will stave off hunger for as long as possible, like protein, fiber, and fats. I exercise—not because it will make me live longer but because it feels good when I do. As for medical care: I will seek help for an urgent problem, but I am no longer interested in looking for problems that remain undetectable to me. Ideally, the determination of when one is old enough to die should be a personal decision, based on a judgment of the likely benefits, if any, of medical care and—just as important at a certain age—how we choose to spend the time that remains to us.

. . . In giving up on preventive care, I’m just taking this line of thinking a step further: Not only do I reject the torment of a medicalized death, but I refuse to accept a medicalized life, and my determination only deepens with age. As the time that remains to me shrinks, each month and day becomes too precious to spend in windowless waiting rooms and under the cold scrutiny of machines. Being old enough to die is an achievement, not a defeat, and the freedom it brings is worth celebrating.

Well, I don’t fully agree with her; if you’re in good health, and still look forward to life, why not at least have routine tests for things that are easily treated, like high blood pressure or high cholesterol.

But I can understand the abstemiousness that itself makes life less valuable. I well remember that when I was younger, and could eat anything I wanted, in any amount, without putting on weight, I said, “If I ever had to restrict my diet, I’d kill myself.” Well, here I am fasting twice a week, and with my love of food, it’s no picnic. Yet I’m not contemplating suicide! A “low carb diet”, which I tried, was worse: no bread, pasta, and, especially, no wine or beer.  Is living worth living if that’s what you can’t eat or drink? I gave that up for fasting, but now two days a week I don’t get any food save a latte with Splenda.  And if I really wanted to live a long time, I’d go on one of those diets where you just eat vegetables and fruits, or simply cut down my food intake, like a rat, to near starvation.

But is that a life worth living? Not for me. In my head I sometimes hear the words of U. S. Marine Sergeant Major Daniel Daly (twice a Medal of Honor winner), who was supposed to have spurred on his men at the Battle of Belleau Wood by saying:

“For Christ’s sake men—come on! Do you want to live forever?”

 

The thoughts of dying children

February 1, 2018 • 12:45 pm

These tweets, sent to me by Matthew, were collected and posted by Alastair McAlpine, who doesn’t seem to have a big internet presence. But these statements, which come from terminally ill children, are ineffably beautiful and poignant. They made me tear up hard.

There is nothing sadder than a dying child, who lose their lives before they’ve lived them. What a horrible thing it must be for a parent to think about that! But there’s an upside to be found below: these kids enjoyed themselves, and they’re telling us what we, who have much longer lives, should be enjoying too.

Read them all.