On Trees and Travel and the Value of Life

Two pieces of writing, appearing on the world wide web on two consecutive days in April, described two disturbingly different views of the respective values, hopes and human obligations of two very fragile Canadian lives!

In the first piece, I read a thoughtful, wise and beautiful story ostensibly about making and carrying out a decision to lop off a significant upper portion of a magnificent white spruce, the age of which is estimated by the person on whose coastal property it sits, to be about 85.
(http://fragileandwild.com/2013/04/11/slow-death-and-the-felling-of-trees/#more-293)

Although the tree might have fallen at any time, that surgical “lopping” will inevitably cause its death albeit much more slowly than would a “fell-swoop”.

It wasn’t the similarity in our ages (mine and that of the tree) that grabbed my attention nor was it the fact that I actually know the tree, have sat under its shade at times and have watched its resident and visiting wild life with fascination.

No, in addition to the ever captivating beauty of the prose, what grabbed my attention in the article was the subtle but courageous way in which the story of the tree was, in effect, a metaphor for the story of the storyteller’s own life and, inevitably to some degree, of all of our lives.

The second piece, which I read the following day, was a story written by a journalist about a woman about to travel from her home in Canada to Europe to her chosen date with death (Killing her softly: Susan Griffith's last days. Lindor Reynolds, Winnipeg Free Press, Posted: 04/12/2013). Below the headline, the description of the story informed us that, “Instead of enduring months of pain and an inexorable decline into helplessness, Susan Griffiths will ease into a peaceful, painless death. Why, she wonders, are Canadians denied that choice?”
(http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/Killing-her-softly-202733931.html)

My immediate reaction was, Oh! If only she had read the story of the tree! Surely, then, she could not have asked that question! But probably, she could! Many people do!

It is not my intent to retell either story! Rather, I want only to refer to a few images from each article that glued themselves onto my consciousness – images that, to me, pointed to vastly different understandings of life, its value and its purposes!

From the first article comes the clear message that the tree, although dying and diminished in stature and strength, still stands. It stands to the end, alive, to give, to provide and to serve – as will its steward and author of the article, Catherine Frazee.

In the second article many images are evoked by the reasons given for the decision to seek doctor assisted suicide in Switzerland. Due to family circumstances, I have spent many years involved in the lives of people who have disabilities, some disabilities lifelong, some of later onset. Yet I have difficulty in understanding the messages conveyed by the images in the article, never having met people with disabilities who talk about themselves or see themselves in the way the subject of the article appears to have seen herself. In her own words, for example, Susan Griffiths had “... led a hedonistic life ever since (retirement),” “... travelled to South Africa, Botswana and Australia and returned repeatedly to Europe.” She had read “that you become emaciated” and said, “I didn’t want to think of myself as emaciated. I’m so vain;” and she also told the reporter that she had a “gorgeous wardrobe” that because of her increasing disability, she could not wear. Elaborating on her daughter’s comment that it would be “awful” to watch her mother “endure a slow decline and a lot of suffering,” Susan Griffiths is reported to have agreed that it would be awful, but that “the end result is awful too, so you have to go through this process of considering a list of disgusting things in order to come up with the least disgusting thing."

Two stories, two women! Two vastly different points of view! But a great irony, nevertheless, for the two women have much in common! Both have been diagnosed with not entirely dissimilar, degenerative medical conditions. The rate of degeneration is the primary difference.

The writer of the first article, the eloquent story of the tree and the recognition that “even to be dying is to live still” and thus, still, to be free to serve, Catherine Frazee, has lived with that condition since birth. It is a condition that has progressed steadily to her physical detriment throughout her life. Yet, despite the unrelenting diminishment of her physical capacities, she remains one of the most inspiring examples of selfless service that I have ever encountered (and I have been involved in disability action for almost fifty years).

The subject of the second article, Susan Griffiths, received her diagnosis in late 2011. Now, in mid 2013 with great fanfare, she has travelled to Switzerland, where such action is legal, to indulge her wish to die with medical assistance. Not privately, as I imagine most people who wish to commit suicide would prefer but publicly and, it would appear from the various interviews, perhaps even selfishly.

This is not intended to make judgements about the conditions of either woman. Deterioration happens more quickly in one diagnosis but equally inevitably, in both. But this isn’t even about inevitability. Death is inevitable for all of us. It is about the damage that is done to the images and well being of people who live their day-to-day, often long and productive lives with such conditions, when people who acquire such conditions later in life cannot contemplate that reality and decide they would rather be dead. I continue to be disturbed by the lack of consideration for others in these decisions.

I have never thought of suicide as “disgusting”; tragic, yes, and devastating for loved ones, always, yet, so often, a stark and sad reminder that we do not do enough in our society to help each other in times of distress. I cannot conceive of suicide as the “least disgusting thing” that we might face in day to day life, no matter the extent to which we might need help at some point in our lives – or at all points in our lives – with those fundamental day to day realities of breathing, eating, drinking, bathing and defecating. And, yes, we do need more palliative care and, collectively, we must shoulder the responsibility for ensuring its provision.

But I cannot believe that any of us should expect society to sanction our self indulgent wishes to be professionally assisted to deliberately depart from the life that we have been given. It is essential to our well being that our doctors be the champions of life and to continue to do their utmost to protect it as best they can. I do not believe that the rest of us can be allowed to assume a right to force doctors to destroy life. Audrey Cole May 1, 2013