|
This website has now become a
Tumblr Blog
- follow it and never miss an update!
|
|
|
Secular Humanism |
 |
|
A Humanist Memorial Service |
|
(ie. grounded in
reality and not fantasy) |
| |
|
Quotes about activism |
|
I watched as my parents faced their dignified, peaceful
death - together
When the conductor Sir Edward Downes and his terminally
ill wife Joan decided to end their lives, their daughter Boudicca was one of
the first to be told. She tells why she supported them and describes their
last moments at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich.
The Observer, Sunday 19 July 2009
It was Good Friday and Boudicca Downes had just put her three-year-old son
to bed. Her husband was preparing dinner in the kitchen of their flat when
the phone rang and she answered to hear the voice of her father.
"He told me that my mum had cancer," said Boudicca, her voice wavering as
she recalled the conversation with Sir Edward Downes, the world-famous
conductor. "He told me of the last two weeks, of the checks mum had been
having, and the various doctor appointments. And he told me the prognosis: a
matter of months, possibly weeks. Then he just said, 'so we've decided,
we're both going to Switzerland'." |

Edward Downes, conductor at the Royal Opera House, Covent
Garden,
and his wife, Joan, and their new baby son,
Caractacus. Photograph: PA
|
Her 85-year-old father and his terminally ill wife, Joan, 74, would travel
together from their London home to the Dignitas clinic in Zurich where they
would be helped to fulfil their final desire - to commit suicide together.
It was there that Boudicca, 39, and her brother Caractacus, 41, gripped
their parents' hands as each swallowed a single dose of a lethal
barbiturate. Within minutes Edward and his wife were dead. It was three
months, to the day, since he had made that phone call to his daughter.
Sitting last week in the London house in which she grew up surrounded by
shelves lined with thousands of her father's books, Boudicca took a deep
breath and began to explain why she had supported her parents; why she had
backed not just her mother, who had only a few, painful months left, but
also her father, who may have lived for a decade or more.
"Mum was not frightened of dying, but she was frightened of a living death,"
she said. "She loved her life and she was infuriated by any type of illness,
even a cold, by anything that sapped her energy levels because she had stuff
to do," said Boudicca. "The idea of being increasingly weak, fragile and
tired in the last weeks of her life were unbearable." Even at 74, Joan was
the only person with more energy than her 3-year-old grandson, Zeki.
It is perhaps not difficult for people to understand why Boudicca supported
her mother's decision to cut short a few painful, exhausting and
soul-destroying months: days when she would no longer be able to smile at
her daughter, play with her grandson or engage in intellectual conversation
with her husband.
All Boudicca wanted for the woman who had loved her throughout her life was
"a dignified death involving the least suffering possible".
But what about their father? "I understand why there have to be very careful
regulations to protect the vulnerable," she said. "In my father's case, and
I think in the case of many others, the issue is not the fact that you are
about to die of a terminal illness in a certain number of weeks or months.
It is that your life becomes unbearable because of physical or mental
suffering. My father wasn't terminally ill, but he was 85, he had many
health problems. He was in terrible, terrible pain and had been for a long
time."
Boudicca described how hard it had been for her father to lose his sight and
with it one of his greatest loves - reading. She looked around the room she
was sitting in: "I am surrounded by thousands of books on every possible
subject from history to art to languages to westerns. He was completely
obsessed with books." But it was not just his eyesight.
Upstairs, in another room lined with orchestral scores and tapes, stood
Edward's piano - a painful reminder to Boudicca of watching as her father's
hearing began to slip away. Though he wore a hearing aid, it distorted the
sounds around him.
"For someone with my father's ear, that was hard to bear," said Boudicca of
the man who conducted the first night at the Sydney Opera House, led the BBC
Philharmonic, and worked with the Royal Opera House Chorus and Orchestra for
more than five decades.
"Having lived such an incredible life, he couldn't read and he couldn't
listen," said Boudicca. "He didn't have a terminal illness, but without my
mother his life would have been unbearable - he would have been utterly
miserable.
"Ten years of misery - was that really worth fighting for after such a full
life?"
Unquestionably, the news that Joan was soon to die played a huge part in
Edward's decision to cut short his own life. Nevertheless, he had to make
his own case to Dignitas as to why the group should help him to take his
life. "The fact that his wife was dying was not a factor in their evaluation
of his suitability," said Boudicca, who dismissed claims that the
organisation was not thorough enough in its checks.
"The Swiss government regulates it closely. Dignitas needed to ensure my
parents were absolutely convinced of what they wanted to do and they had
many occasions throughout the whole process, right up to the minute before,
to change their minds," said Boudicca. "It was so thorough I was worried mum
would not be well enough to travel or that she would collapse before they
were given a date."
That did not happen. After 54 years of marriage - 37 in the same family home
in Blackheath, south London; after bringing up two children and watching a
grandson come into the world; after a lifetime filled with professional
triumphs and moments of joy - Edward and Joan boarded a flight to Zurich,
Switzerland, for their final trip together. Caractacus travelled with them,
while Boudicca flew in from her home in Rome.
"The idea of travelling to Zurich and being there in a hotel for four days
was very difficult because you want to be at home, but in reality we spent a
wonderful last few days together. My parents were always good fun and they
had no regrets. There were no last-minute confessions or requests for
forgiveness. We didn't need that."
Joan had been reluctant for her children to be there, but Dignitas asked
them to come as witnesses and promised it was something they would not
regret. "It would be very strange to be anywhere else knowing that my
parents were dying that Friday morning," said Boudicca.
They were given anti-nausea liquid, and after half an hour they swallowed
the lethal shot that would bring their "wonderful lives" to an end. "It was
calm and dignified - as they wanted," said Boudicca. "I will always know
that they had a peaceful death - together."
The bodies were cremated and the ashes scattered in a Swiss forest. There
was no funeral.
From there Boudicca and her brother flew to Rome, where Boudicca works as a
producer for a UN organisation, so she could be with her son and husband.
She told Zeki that he would not see his London grandparents again and tried
to explain why she was so sad.
Then Boudicca and Caractacus flew to London to start sorting through their
childhood home. "Everything is imbued with them, everything," said Boudicca
walking through the family house where she spent so many happy years.
She stared at the garden - lovingly tended by her mother, who would wake
early in the morning in her final weeks to water the plants and flowers. She
sat in the kitchen where Joan would spend hours offering a friendly ear to
her friends. "My father would make the tea and then he would disappear to
his study. His hunger for knowledge was relentless - he was going over
Russian verbs three weeks ago," said Boudicca.
And they contacted the police. "We were well aware of the legal
implications," she said. "But we had nothing to hide. The priority was
making sure mum and dad died how they wanted - and together."
All their friends understood the decision, she said. "My parents were
fiercely independent and determined people. They did everything in a
rational, slightly controversial and imaginative way - that is how they
lived their lives. They weren't mainstream," she added, explaining that her
father had chosen their names because of a love of ancient history.
Edward and Joan, she said, were not the type of people who had to pack their
final months with the things they had dreamed of doing in their lives - they
had already done it all in their decades together. "They always lived
everything so intensely. It wasn't a case of making up for lost time," she
said.
-----------------------------------------------
The final human right
• Dignitas was founded in Zurich in 1998 by Ludwig Minelli, a lawyer, who
says that his group allows people to exercise "the last human right".
• Last Friday Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his 74-year-old wife, Joan, became
the 116th and 117th Britons to take their lives at the clinic.
• At least five of the British people to die at the Swiss clinic did not
have illnesses that doctors would describe as terminal.
• Conditions of those who have gone to the clinic to commit suicide include
cancer, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis.
• Last year, Daniel James, 23, became the youngest Briton to be assisted in
his suicide at Dignitas. He had been left paralysed from the chest down
after a rugby accident and was in constant pain.
• In 2003, Reg Crew, a former docker with motor neurone disease, became the
first named Briton to take his life at Dignitas. He was accompanied by a
television crew.
• Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis, lost a landmark battle in which
she tried to clarify the law on assisted suicide. Although in theory
punishable by up to 14 years in prison, none of the family members who have
accompanied Britons to Dignitas has been prosecuted.
|
|
Me and the secular police
I was wrong to blame the non-religious for banning God from
civil weddings. It's all the church's doing
Giles Fraser
The Guardian
Monday June 16 2008
I have spoken at dozens of weddings, but never at a civil ceremony. Being a
vicar, it was something of a challenge. "The law will not permit the use of
any wording, readings or music which may have religious connotations at a
civil marriage," is how the Weddings in Westminster brochure explained the
limitations. That seemed a mighty sweeping prohibition - I can get
"religious connotations" from pretty much anything. Under these
circumstances, what could I say that would be of any use to the happy
couple? Indeed, what could I say at all?
I phoned up the register office people to explain my plight. Things got
worse. They weren't sure if I could say my few words wearing a clerical
collar. And it was suggested that I might have to submit my script in
advance for clearance. I had heard about this bonkers state of affairs
before - of a couple who were banned from having a CD of Robbie Williams
singing Angels at their wedding because it was too religious - but this was
my first run-in with the secular culture police. This summer, all over the
country, wedding couples will be told that they can't have a Shakespeare
sonnet or Elizabeth Browning's How Do I Love Thee because it has some whiff
of the divine about it.
In the end I made a gag about the restrictions and spoke, tongue in cheek,
about the chemistry of love: testosterone, oestrogen, oxytocin,
phenethylamine. I made no use of the banned G word. Instead, I drew chemical
symbols on large boards that I then presented to my atheist mates Mick and
Nicky with the no-doubt hopeless explanations of what these chemicals
brought to a relationship.
But why have we prohibited from civil weddings some of the most moving and
thoughtful reflections on the ways of the human heart? Why are we allowed
only to paint from the limited palate of strict empiricism when this, above
all days, is when we ought to be making fullest use of the language of love?
I left the wedding grumbling to myself about secular control-freakery, all
pumped up to write something fierce about the way the secular has turned
into a campaign for the systematic eradication of all religion from the
public sphere.
But I had got this one all wrong. There is no secular plot - indeed, the
truth is almost the reverse. In 2005, the government published a
consultation document on proposed changes to the current guidelines. "The
religious organisations who responded were unanimous that no readings from
religious texts should be allowed, even if they did not directly refer to
the deity." The Catholic bishops were totally against allowing religious
texts to be used. "Through secular use their particular religious
meaningfulness can be diminished," they argued.
So, the reason you can't mention God in a civil ceremony is because the
churches won't allow it. If there is any control-freakery here, it is from
church authorities acting as though the Bible were their property and that
they alone have the wisdom and responsibility for interpreting God. Members
of the public can't be trusted to understand the Bible on their own or to
use it respectfully. Just think - horror of horrors - what if a gay couple
were to want a Bible reading at their civil partnership? Here, then, is the
real scandal behind the prohibition of religious readings in civil
ceremonies. It's all about monopolising the divine.
In 1401, Henry IV passed a law that forbade ordinary people owning a Bible.
Those caught were burnt at the stake. The Reformation did away with this -
the Bible was to be available for all and did not require a priest in order
to show people how it must be understood. Which is why, at a civil wedding,
the couple ought to be able to have whatever readings and music they choose.
There is no secular transgression here, for it grants religion no special
privileges. It simply recognises that the Bible is literature too - and
owned by no one.
· Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney
|
|