Australia: Christian Rossiter wins the only “right” that society is willing to grant him

There were a number of developments over the past week or two that will need to be highlighted here. I am still catching up.

In a case of déjà vu (we’ve had similar cases in the U.S.), a man with quadriplegia has won the “right” to starve himself in Australia.

I was looking for the right source material to summarize the situation, and found what I was looking for when reading the blog Turner & Kowalski – it’s relatively new but is written by some folks I’ve encountered elsewhere in the blogosphere. Here’s an excerpt from the description of the blog:

We’re a bunch of disgruntled autistic self-advocates, who have been blogging under various guises on different blogs for some years now.

Disgruntled, because there’s so much rampant hatred and bigotry towards autistics.

They’re serious – I’ve seen the harassment some of them have received.

In one of their latests posts, the authors of the blog featured a series of links under “Freak Week.”

That’s where I found the article – the blog entry – about this latest “victory” for the “right to die.” Hoyden about Town‘s Lauredhel writes says everything we need to know about Christian Rossiter’s right-to-die:

I’ve been trying and trying for many days to write about the Christian Rossiter “right to die” case, and I just haven’t managed more than an incoherent wargle. A chat with rb has convinced me that that’s better than nothing, so here it is.

If you haven’t been following along, that’s probably because all of this has been happening in Western Australia. Christian Rossiter is a forty-something year old bloke who used to climb rocks and cycle and do all sorts of physically active stuff. He now has a high spinal injury, and can no longer do those things.

So what have we, as a society, done for him? Set him up with communication devices such as a internet-enabled computer he can operate (he has talked about not being able to turn the pages of a newspaper)? Offered him opportunities for social inclusion, to the fullest extent that he can manage it? Equipped his home and supplied home nursing care so that he could live in his community and retain his social context? Provided any sort of life enrichment whatsoever?

No. We shoved him in a nursing room, in front of a television set. Oh, but it’s cable, so that’s alright, eh? We did all we could!

Now he wants to die. He’s been fighting for his right to refuse nutrition, because he can’t handle being shoved in a bed in a nursing home with nothing but Foxtel for company. Today, he won that right.

Everyone’s talking about this being a “good outcome”, a “win”. Apart from the folks who say that it’s not that great, because hey, we should be knocking him off quicker. They’re all talking about how obviously they would choose euthanasia too, if they couldn’t walk or eat or blow their nose. Because such a life could never be worth living. Because such a person is valueless.

All I can come up with is gurgles of rage and horror.

I have not yet seen ONE PERSON question his treatment, question the way we as a society have failed him – NOT in our lack of provision of a way to quickly bow out, but in our COMPLETE failure to support him in finding out whether maybe, just maybe his life could be worth living.

In my mind, she’s nailed the issues around so many of these situations completely. No one cares about why an old, ill or disabled person wants to die. Might be too much bother and expense to find out what they really want or need.

Please read the entire post – and leave a comment. –Stephen Drake