UK: Our Time To Die? A satirical look at media coverage of assisted suicide

Originally made for the Society for Disability Studies (SDS) Conference, 2009, this film by Liz Carr and Katherine Araniello, is a satirical look at the media coverage of assisted suicide in the UK. While folks in the UK or people who follow this topic will be able to identify the specific video clips most readily, the message is clear to anyone, I think.

Great video – features, among other things, excerpts of “Euthanasia Blues” by Norm Kunc and Emma Van der Klift.

7 thoughts on “UK: Our Time To Die? A satirical look at media coverage of assisted suicide

  1. I’m not exactly sure what point this video is trying to make. However, it is not funny and it is sickening to see the obvious pro-not dead yet viewpoint engraved into this video, making light of people’s suffering, as if they are trying to tell us that no amount of suffering gives us the right to want to die. This video is stooping to a new low in terms of how desperately pathetic the group Not Dead Yet has become, as again, it is obvious of their involvement in this video. Anyways, I am disabled, suffering severely from neuropathy in terms of both disability and pain. Even though I am pro right-to-die, I tried to look at this video objectively, without bias. From what I see from that perspective, is that the presentation of this video, not the video’s contents, are dehumanizing and wrong, showing the makers of this video as being totally immature and bullish towards the suffering of the disabled, which extends beyond just those who want to die. The involvement of Not Dead Yet in this video, essentially shows that not only are they insulting disabled people of the pro right-to-die mindset, but they also are insulting disabled people of all forms of belief. Anyone who is a member of Not Dead Yet, literally is insulting themselves for being disabled. The entire premise of Not Dead Yet’s argument against the right-to-die, is false, due to its basis on the belief that we in the right-to-die movement, somehow want to cause death to them. While it is true that we would love for Not Dead Yet to die as an organization, we do not wish anything on them individually, other than that they as individuals can find the support that they need to have a better quality-of-life, while maintaining the right-to-die, should they choose that option. The desire of us in the right-to-die movement, is for everyone to have the best life possible, while maintaining the right-to-die as an option for peaceful deliverance from intolerable suffering.

  2. Kurt,

    Your comments make it pretty obvious that you remain immensely ignorant about Not Dead Yet, the disability rights movement – and, yes, even the “right to be killed” movement.

    1. NDY had no involvement in this video. It was shown at a conference last August – and we only became aware of it less than a week ago.

    2. What the film is taking a poke at is the claim by the euthanasia advocates that the issues of assisted suicide and euthanasia aren’t about disability – it’s about “terminal illness.”

    3. “Right to die” activists aren’t doing shit when it comes to helping people with disabilities get supports in their homes, get full educations, stay out of institutions and get employment. In fact, the “hopelessness” they cast with disabled “poster children” talking about how they’d be better off dead makes it harder for the rest of us get the public to believe that we actually like living and would like to partake of more of it.

    If you’re going to be “objective,” take a good look at the Final Exit Network – their members are writing op-eds falsely claiming they help “terminally ill” people die. Do a search on the site – the articles are linked.

    How good can their arguments be if they have to lie to justify their behavior?

  3. Thank you for posting my previous comment, Stephen, and for responding to it. I apologize for my assumption that the video could have been produced by Not Dead Yet. Both the link to the video, combined with the link promotion towards the end of the video, gave me that idea.

    Anyways, to respond to you. Being that I am a disabled, not diagnosed as terminally ill, person, I am sort of an “outsider” amongst the majority of those in the right-to-die, which mostly comprise of elderly, very terminally ill people, or people who are related to people who are/were. Also, my younger age adds to the difference as well. I can’t fully speak on behalf of the Final Exit Network itself, since I’m not on its board. I can only speak pertaining to my involvement with the organization, in which I have never been “forced” into doing anything by the FEN. I’ve never been targeted by the FEN at all. I joined the organization from my own search looking for a right-to-die organization which could support me in my search of a peaceful death for me at the time and place of my choosing. I was accepted to become a member of the FEN, only after an extensive review of my medical history was done and meeting with a board member, in order to discuss my wishes. From my own experience, the FEN has not done anything wrong.

    Regarding the right-to-die movement’s activists, many of them are so busy dealing with the primary issue within the movement of getting laws changed based from the principle of “rights”, that many of them do not have the time to campaign for improvements of peoples’ quality-of-life, although many of them do support quality-of-life improvements, as well as the right-to-die. Personally, I’d love to see your work with the ADAPT organization succeed, not only because I know how it is like to be discriminated against in housing issues, but also because I also believe that living standards must be improved for the disabled. It is true that a poor quality-of-life could lead people into wanting to die. Inadequate living conditions caused by the neglect of society, does increase the likelihood for that to occur. This especially is true for the disabled, since discrimination against the disabled, is rampant. Yet, the same discrimination is done by society against those who are of certain sexual preference, religion, race, nationality, gender, etc. This includes discrimination against those who want to die, in cases such as where a terminally ill person gets admitted into a psychiatric ward and placed on meds, against their will. The problem is in discrimination itself, which is done by society as a form of social control. Society doesn’t benefit from legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia, because it takes the person out of the realm of society’s control. However, if enough people protest for the right-to-die, then some forms of legalization will have to occur. Ultimately though, there never will be a situation where society forcibly uses assisted suicide and euthanasia, as a means of eliminating the disabled. To do so, would be to do so on a mass scale, a form of mass genocide, which would include far more than just the disabled. If society wants to do this, which I doubt, then they will find a more effective way than the peaceful means currently used in assisted suicide and euthanasia exits.

  4. Kurt,

    The only comments I delete on this blog are spammers, those that have language that promote violence, racially/ethnically offensive content or just meets new criteria I hadn’t thought about in terms of “really really offensive.”

    I don’t know how you can make the claims you do about knowing what the rank and file members of FEN are with the group for. If all they cared about was “assistance” for the terminally ill, they’d be hooking up with Compassion & Choices. I’m not sure you’ve applied much critical thinking when it comes to matching what people say to what their actions tell you.

    The *leaders* of FEN are folks who’ve managed to make a very good living off of promoting the right to be killed – this would go for both Derek Humphry and Faye Girsh.

    Check out the histories of the members of your advisory board – Faye Girsh and Ruth von Fuchs. Girsh advocated lower criminal penalties for the *unasked for* killing of old ill and disabled family members in a press release a number of years ago. von Fuchs has been a defender of Robert Latimer, who gassed his disabled 12-year-old daughter in his truck.

    Your “friends” advocate for a helluva lot more than you think they do.

    If you comment again here, I think I deserve a reply to you about the lies coming from FEN board members in the press. Saying things such as (non-terminally ill) Robert Celmer wouldn’t have “needed” FEN if he’d lived in Oregon. Celmer was cancer-free.

    Your friends are lying and evidently aren’t very fearless to say what they really are advocates for. –Stephen Drake

  5. Hi Stephen,

    Still, I appreciate your posting my comments here, as well as your responding to them, considering that my viewpoint on assisted suicide and euthanasia differ tremendously from yours and Not Dead Yet. Hopefully you don’t get many offensive comments. Although, I understand how these issues can anger people. Preferable though, that they at least could post comments maturely and tactfully.

    Anyways, all I know about the board of the Final Exit Network, in terms of why they are there, was for them to be able to organize a group of people who support the right-to-die, including exit guides to provide a caring person present at members’ exits. From what I’ve heard, Compassion & Choices does not send exit guides to be with a person at that person’s exit, and that Compassion & Choices strictly deals with law reform. The Final Exit Network wanted to exist in order to help people on an individual level, at their time of need. The Final Exit Network’s actions are pretty clear to me. You make it seem like the advocacy of wanting to end a person’s pain and suffering by ending their lives, is a bad thing. That is subjective and open for debate, based on the controversial nature of the subject. Being that I support the right-to-die, I don’t have a problem with a person ending another person’s life, as long as it is something that the person who wants to die, agrees to, without pressure from anyone. This is why I don’t particularly like the claim made by some people who want to die, that they want to die based from a supposed fear of being a burden to their families. In my opinion, that isn’t a good reason to want to die, just as someone saying that they want to live because they fear death. If a person wants to die, it ought to be because of their own pain and suffering, not because they are afraid of being a burden to their families. If a person wants to live, it ought to be because they love life, not because they are afraid of death, or even worse, they want to appease society.

    If John Celmer really did not have cancer, or some other terminal illness, then obviously he would not have been helped by the assisted suicide law in Oregon. Whether or not he still had cancer, apparently he provided the Final Exit Network with medical documents stating that he was diagnosed with cancer, probably without any information pertaining to any significant health improvements, otherwise risking.his acceptance into becoming a member of the Final Exit Network, which was based from him having a terminal and/or incurable illness. Any changes in his health, was his decision whether or not to tell to anyone, including to the Final Exit Network. This is where what the Final Exit Network’s exit guide services, poses a major risk to the organization. For it is very difficult for the organization to really know updated status of members’ health, including in situations where a member who is suffering from an incurable illness which may use to have been intolerable to the person, eventually becomes manageable. At that point, if a person still wants to die and goes through with it, while FEN’s exit guides are present, then surely it puts the Final Exit Network in a much greater legal risk, considering the law regarding suicide, in some states. However, the principle of what the Final Exit Network provides in its exit guide services, is what I agree with; for a person to be able to end their own life while having compassionate support by their side during the exit. Granted, I know that you don’t particularly think of the Final Exit Network as being nice people, Stephen, I assure you that they have been very nice to me.

  6. One more paragraph, which didn’t fit within the character limit of the previous comment that I wrote…

    Regarding what I think of some of the board members’ personal actions/beliefs, I really can’t say, since I don’t have much contact with them, besides to discuss with them about my situation, as well as to discuss how they are doing as people, not how they are doing as Final Exit Network board members. Also, since I’m not on the board, I don’t have much input into their discussion and decision making. Personally, I’d love to be on the board of the organization. However, like most things in my life, alot of what I really want to do in my life, doesn’t happen. I do have a great interest in the right-to-die, as I have such a strong belief in it, besides for just my own situation. There are things which I think would take the Final Exit Network out of the legal risk, while still providing the members with support. Yet, I am limited, due to my not being on the board. Therefore, I can’t really speak on the Final Exit Network’s behalf, only from my own involvement with them.

  7. Kurt,

    Being blunt, you’re still evading the points I’ve made about your friends and allies. The things I have pointed out about FEN members *lying* about who FEN “helps” were done in their capacity as FEN members. Similarly when Girsh and von Fuchs advocated for their little expansive agendas (the killing of kids with developmental disabilities) they did so in their roles as representatives of specific “right to die” organizations.

    “nice” is a meaningless description to me. There are “nice” people capable of doing really crappy and creepy things (you should see the documentary on George Exoo sometime).

    I mean it Kurt – on the one hand, you want to do informal PR work for your friends, but OTOH you evade any comment on evidence that shows they operate with something less than integrity.

    Check the coverage linked here. And be sure to read the news article about the training manual they use with “exit guides,” telling them what “special” people they all are.

    You can keep making comments, but if you keep cheerfully dodging uncomfortable questions, I’ll keep calling you on it. –Stephen

Comments are closed.