The explanation for this current title will probably appear before the end of this essay. This means that those of you who wonder why this lovely title exists will have to hold on for a while and it will give you a vital interest in the outcome of this little piece.
Over the 11 years that I have been writing essays, there have been a number of occasions when I have touched on third-rail subjects. Those subjects, of course, are religion and politics. In this essay, I propose to touch on another third-rail subject which may arouse visceral emotions. The subject is assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.
I know that this can generate emotions based largely on the teachings of your religion. But it is a subject that is worthy of our attention because it is timely. As citizens age and acquire new ailments, it is clear to me that the thought of assisted suicide may well occur to those who are in constant pain. If they elect to end their lives, far be it from me to criticize them. I am not an advocate of assisted suicide but I can envisage the times when it may be well for people to consider ending the torment of pain by ending their lives.
The case comes into focus in the deaths of Sir Edward Downes and his wife earlier this month. Sir Edward was a noted British conductor who had enjoyed great success. He was a major interpreter of the works of Giuseppe Verdi and the Ukrainian composer, Sergei Prokofiev. The record suggests that he conducted 93 concerts in the famous Covent Garden auditorium in London. Beyond that, he was for a considerable period of time the conductor of the British Philharmonic. For his work in music, he was awarded a knighthood, which is an extraordinary achievement. He was 85 years of age. His wife was 76 years of age and was in the last stages of cancer, which had bedeviled her life in recent years. Sir Edward and Lady Downes made an arrangement with an organization in Zurich, Switzerland to end their lives. According to their children, who witnessed the event, minutes after sipping a cocktail, they fell into unconsciousness and in ten minutes were pronounced dead.
There is one other aspect about the health situations of the Downes couple. Sir Edward was losing not only his ability to see but also his ability to hear. I can tell you that a blind man who cannot hear is in serious trouble. A man who cannot read a musical score and cannot hear it would probably have to forfeit his job as a conductor. And he will lose the ability to listen to music forever. So the Downes couple had serious problems and wished to depart this vale of tears together. This led to the appointment with the Zurich agency, which charged them about $6,500 each.
I cannot find it in my heart to condemn Sir Edward and Lady Downes. To the contrary, I applaud them for their decision and the fact that it was carried out in accordance with their wishes. To put my views succinctly, I am not an advocate of killing people at $6,500 a clip. On the other hand, for those who are terminally ill and are suffering great pain, it seems to me that having a means to die peacefully is the most humane thing that we can provide.
My experiences in World War II have a lot to do with my viewpoint. When one of our gunners was hit by 30-caliber or 50-caliber machine gun fire, it literally tore him apart. In those cases, I can remember a person or two begging to die as soon as possible.
But 65 years have passed since World War II and its survivors are aging and have contracted all sorts of ailments. I suspect that those who are bedridden and confined to wheelchairs may well give a thought to a humane way out. Others may simply have lost their zest for living. In my own case, I am not terminally ill and hope to avoid that condition. But if that condition arrives, I would hope that there would be an alternate means of death rather than enduring a long and costly illness prior to death. That simply makes sense. As you can see, I am unrestricted by religious prohibitions on causing an untimely death. If that time ever arrives for me, I would hope that the religious authorities would mind their own business.
Before this essay is complete, it seems to me that a personal note is called for. I am, as most of my readers know, blind. If I lost my ability to hear, it would be very nearly catastrophic. I listen to music and for five days each week The New York Times in a condensed audio version is read to me by a recording device. When I became blind, there were four books on the shelf near my chair that were to be read. I now, as you may have guessed, buy books that provide an audio version.
There is a bit more to it. I sleep in a four-poster brass bed. When I arise, I fumble with my white cane until the end of the bed is located by striking the cane against the brass post. At that point I know to turn left to go to the bathroom. The cane of course makes no sound while I tread on the rug, but as soon as the bathroom is reached, the cane tells me that there is a tile floor and that then positions me. A white cane is a poor substitute for eyesight but for the sightless that is all there is. But it is a good bit better than nothing, which would be the case if loss of hearing were involved. I do not wish to trouble my readers with my personal problems, but I hope that this disclosure may tend to provide understanding for the decision that Sir Edward and Lady Downes made. It is a cruel choice but again I will say that in my heart I cannot find it possible to criticize them. Much to the contrary, I salute their courage.
Now as for the title of this essay: at the outset the thought occurred to me that if under the Roe v. Wade, umbrella a woman can do as she wishes with her body, it would seem to follow as a matter of consistency, that an old-timer in pain and agony could do the same. There are those who will say, much to my regret, that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. And there are others who will say, with respect to females, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. And so I have blended these two thoughts, which results in the hobgoblin making the sauce for the gander. It seems to me that a little levity at the end of a very serious essay might be required. And so it has been provided.
E. E. CARR
July 28, 2009
Essay 400
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: For more on the subject, see here: https://ezrasessays.com/?p=924 — my thoughts there apply equally well here. The critical difference is that this one has a bizarre yet fitting title. The word “hobgoblin” is criminally underused these days.
I also have just realized that I’m rapidly approaching the halfway point to the Essays. Exciting stuff! I’ve published 343 to date, counting this one.