Cass Avery: Death deserves dignity

The subject of death isn't an instant winner so I'll follow the golden rule of public address and open with a joke.

A builder dies and, at heaven's gate, God tells him he's going to hell. The builder arrives in hell to be told by the devil he will be thrown into the fiery pit. But the builder points out that hell is looking shabby and suggests he do some repair work first.

After a bit of work, hell starts to look stylish. God notices and decides to recall the builder to heaven. The devil refuses to let the builder go so God threatens to take the devil to court. Go on then, sue me, says the devil, and where will you find a lawyer?

There are lots of jokes about death, probably because death makes us nervous. Laughing about it helps to take the fear factor out for a moment. But, interestingly, when I did an internet search for jokes about euthanasia, there weren't any. Such is the state of the euthanasia debate.

The euthanasia debate is often summed up in the phrase "right to die". The essence of the anti-euthanasia debate seems to be that individuals shouldn't, under any circumstances, have the right to make death decisions. That's God's realm. Unless, of course, you're a doctor.

But if doctors are allowed to wrench people back from death's door and thwart a master plan, isn't it obvious that they should be able to, just as mercifully, thwart that plan again by easing people through death's door sometimes?

And if it was a divine plan that allowed doctors to save a life, why can't it be a divine plan for them to end one as well?

Uh oh, I can hear my cockpit warning system going off ... pull up, pull up. There's a mountain of righteous indignation ahead.

When the discussion gets to divine will and life and death, it all comes down to beliefs. And beliefs have no basis in logic or fact so I can't get anywhere here by doing some shifty work around the lack of logic behind invoking divine will.

What I can do, to support my point of view, is bring in the research. A website was running a poll on euthanasia as the Lesley Martin story was hitting the headlines again last week. Of the 2000 or so votes cast, 80 per cent were in favour of euthanasia.

That suggests two things. Either there is a strange correlation between atheism and internet use or, even among the God-fearing population, the belief that only God has the right to decide when and how death should be visited on the living doesn't carry as much currency as it used to.

I've had plenty of discussions around the dinner table with family about what we would do if the time came when one of us was incapacitated and had no quality of life.

We have figured our way to the truth that, at that point, their life would be being maintained for the rest of us, each one too scared to summon death. And that's a huge call.

We have, within our own family, agreed that we won't formalise any deal on pulling the plug because it's asking too much to nominate a family member to make the final call.

Family members shouldn't have to make that call. Family members shouldn't be traumatised to the point that not only are they making those calls, they are sometimes physically taking the matter into their own hands.

Anyone who has faced their demons over assisting someone they love to die has my utmost respect and sympathy. I wish for them, and for all of us who may face their dilemma, that there was a sanctioned solution.

If I live to like Osti frocks, and that will mean I'll be living after my mind has left the building, I'll probably be in my late eighties or nineties. That's the projection of an average innings for my generation.

And if I'm on the way out in a painful or messy fashion, why on earth should I not be allowed to request check-out before 10am? A few more months of pain or suffering will contribute what to the world? Another death that happened when it was scientifically unsupportable and morally acceptable?

Well, I'm not living to prove anyone else's point about science or morality, thank you very much. It's my choice.

Science-fiction writers have created frightening future worlds where the elderly are bumped off to make way for people who need their resources, where it becomes a duty to die to make way for the living.

Science-fact is working to create a future world where we can regenerate failing limbs and organs and life expectancies will soar. Who can say what will come?

Before any of that happens we will all have pegged out. Let's hope we have the choice to do it with some dignity.