Dear Theresa Villiers MP
I have already written to you about the challenges I want to set the government in the Repeal Bill. I have some serious concerns I’d like to write to you about in this message. The issue I write to you about here is the one which affects me.
(I believe you may already have had other people contacting you about these issues and the People’s Clause because the human rights organisation Liberty has asked their members to contact their MPs.)
I’m deeply concerned about the protections against cruelty and inhumane treatment which were (but inadequately) protected by oversight from the EU.
The existing international human rights framework is inadequate and I’m a victim of its failures. I’m also a victim of the failures of the government to be humane.
I’ve written to you about the objective of the suicide system and the government should have which could have saved me. It’s the objective of protection from suicidal feelings. It’s too late to save me but there are countless other victims who can be saved from the abundance of cruelty in modern civilisation, the cruelty which I’ve framed as the reckless with everyone’s will to live. I sent you something a few days ago which was focused on this objective so I won’t go on about it here.
Instead I’m going to try again to persuade you of the message about the cruelty of the criminalisation of assisted suicide. I’ve written to you before and at length about this blatant cruelty.
Suicide is a uniquely effective protection against human cruelty as well as unbearable suffering. It is a guarantee that the victim’s objectives will be fulfilled and while suicide comes at a great cost there’s nothing else which is guaranteed to be effective.
However the government and the justice system have failed to recognise the importance and legitimacy of suicide and thus they are contributing to the abundance of blatant cruelty. The continued criminalisation of assisted suicide is an egregious and heartless act.
Most people choose to die because they have suffered too much or they want to avoid suffering too much in their future. (This includes unbearable quality of life.) The pain they want to escape from enduring is so severe that they’re willing to do anything to escape it. That’s why they’re willing to die because it is worth paying the price to escape the pain.
The personal suffering of suicidal individuals is unbearable and is extreme. It is not necessary to seek validation of the severity of the suffering by an external observer. You must recognise that the fact that when a conscious being chooses suicide what they’re trying to escape is awful.
In addition you must recognise that the decision to die is a deeply personal decision. The rule in regard to this is:
You can ask me to live. But you cannot force me to live because to do this is blatant cruelty.
It is the recognition of the severity of the suffering which exposes the blatant cruelty in the criminalisation of assisted suicide and the cruelty of why it’s criminalised which is to force suicidal individuals to live. The pain is too great to force anyone to endure.
Unfortunately the government has failed to recognise the importance of the nature and severity of the pain (and the circumstances) which cause suicidal feelings. I believe the reason for the criminalisation of assisted suicide is from a perceived sense of care and need for protection. However this sense of care is not care. It is proof that the government does not care about the extreme severity of the pain and does not recognise the cruelty of forcing suicidal individuals to endure what they cannot endure. I want you to know that the severity of what suicidal individuals want to escape from enduring is the overriding concern of any genuine sense of care.
Suicide is the recourse of people who need to control their suffering and end it. There should be a lot of laws which give individuals the power to control what they suffer and what they do not. The legalisation of assisted suicide is a clear way to achieve this and the choice to legalise it embodies the sense of care which is genuine care.
Unfortunately the government is too cruel to recognise the egregious error they’ve made in continuing the criminalisation of assisted suicide. They’ve failed to recognise the blatant cruelty they’re doing. It’s not just this government. This cruelty happens all around the world and the existing international human rights framework does nothing to fetter this blatant cruelty.
I certainly can’t stop this cruelty and neither can any of the public. So I ask you, what is there in the Repeal Bill which will stop you from doing what’s too cruel to do to anyone? Because forcing me and other suicidal individuals to live is a cruelty too cruel to do to anyone.
Obviously suicide comes with a high price but it’s not up to the government to decide whether it is too high a price to pay. It’s up to the individual and it must be the choice of the individual because to force someone to endure what they’d die to escape is blatant cruelty.
There are already liberties which cost some people their lives. For example the freedoms of personal transport and other road users. People who don’t want to die do die because of traffic accidents but this is perceived as an acceptable cost. Obviously the freedom to drive comes with a license test and this is undoubtedly a good thing to apply to assisted suicide so suicidal individuals are able to make the best decision for themselves. However the key point I’m making with this example is that deaths on the road are considered to be acceptable mistakes but people die who don’t want to die. In contrast the provision of assisted suicide leaves the risk up to the individual and no one who doesn’t want to die will die.
I think the cessation of the unbearable suffering of suicidal individuals is considerably more important than the personal liberty to drive personal transport. The perceived protection of suicidal individuals by the continued criminalisation of assisted suicide has the consequence of forcing the victims to endure what’s so terrible to them that they’d willingly end their life to escape it. This is not care. This is blatant cruelty.
I assume you have no need to have control over what you suffer because you don’t suffer too much or fear suffering too much? But I need what suicide provides. I needed it two years ago. I needed it four years ago. I needed it eight years ago. I needed even further ago. In the intervening years I have endured more cruelty than anyone should endure and it’s all because I have failed to kill myself. Suicide saves.
That’s why I need you to stand to see me free to end my suffering. Unfortunately the government is too cruel to stand to see me free to end my suffering. Thus they’re part of the cruelty I’m desperate to escape from.
I have no doubt that the there’s a lot of complexity involved in the suicide debate but the most important thing is the physical and/or mental suffering (which includes unbearable quality of life) which is so severe that the victim is willing to give up the rest of their life to escape from it. To force someone to endure such terrible suffering is a crime but that’s what the government has done to me and other victims who are forced to live.
Where’s the essential protection from cruelty in the Repeal Bill? Where’s the protection from unbearable suffering and inhumane treatment? I can’t stop the cruelty. It’s all up to you.