'Right to Die' Under Increased Scrutiny in the U.K.

Two harrowing cases have brought the whole "right to die" question back to life in the U.K.

The first concerns a year-old infant, known only as Baby RB, who suffers from a rare genetic disease that prevents him from moving his muscles freely or breathing on his own. The baby's parents (who are separated amicably) are in court this week to determine the child's fate.

His mother supports the hospital's wish that he be taken off the ventilator on quality-of-life grounds. His father maintains that a simple tracheotomy -- where a tube is inserted into the neck to facilitate breathing -- would enable the child to move back home, albeit with continued ventilation. Yesterday, the baby's pediatrician weighed in on the case, arguing that the child was not equipped to survive without "constant, intrusive and painful medical care."

Meanwhile, as the country awaited news on that tragic story, an elderly couple -- ages 81 and 83 -- were found dead in their home in Berkshire. The couple sent a suicide note to the BBC explaining that while they were both still reasonably healthy, they wanted to end their lives before they were unable to care for themselves.

In their own words, "To force the issue beyond this point would mean for us a living death; we have therefore chosen to peacefully end our lives." The couple had long campaigned to change British laws regarding assisted suicide. Their death was meant to highlight their view that the decision to end one's life at a moment of one's choosing -- and with loved ones present -- is a fundamental human right.

Interestingly, these cases are cropping up precisely at a moment when the U.K. is moving toward changes. Assisted suicide is a criminal offense in the U.K, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. As a result, many Britons travel abroad to places like Sweden, where voluntary euthanasia is legal if performed by an individual who is not a physician and who has no vested interest in the death.

Over the summer, the high-profile deaths of world-famous British composer Sir Edward Downes and his wife, Joan, at the Swiss right-to-die center Dignitas put this issue back on the public's radar screen. The House of Lords then backed an appeal by a woman with multiple sclerosis to clarify under what circumstances people would be prosecuted for helping someone kill themselves. That led to a new "draft policy" that will become final next year. While that legislation will not allow the creation of Dignitas-style clinics in the U.K., the easing of some legal restrictions around this issue -- particularly for close family members in the case of a terminal illness -- is seen as a victory for the right-to-die movement.

Then, last week, just as all that was going on, the Swiss government announced that it was considering limiting -- or possibly even banning -- assisted suicides. Apparently, authorities there are concerned that Switzerland has become a destination for death tourism, as a study revealed that more and more people are coming there to end their lives, even without a terminal illness.

In short, Europe is giving this whole issue a re-think.

And not just Europe. In the U.S., assisted-suicide legislation (the so-called Death With Dignity acts) remains a state-by-state decision, and only two of them -- Oregon and Washington -- currently allow it. Of course, this issue is by no means resolved. In September, the Montana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case about whether the state constitution allows a person to end his or her life if the individual is competent, terminally ill and wishes to end agonizing pain and suffering due to the illness.

It's easy to see why the issue is so divisive. Like abortion, the decision to end one's life -- or to help someone else do so -- naturally brings up questions of ethics, religion, privacy and choice. It's a complicated issue and there are lots of compelling reasons why assisted suicide shouldn't be legalized. (Here's one published in the Atlantic in 2007, written by a physician.)

Still, at the end of the day, I tend to fall on the side of those who wish to make a careful, well-informed decision about the terms of their own death easier, not harder. My own father passed away eight months ago, and towards the end of his life, we faced the uncomfortable choice of allowing him to continue -- for an unknown (but finite) period -- on a ventilator, or pulling the proverbial plug and letting the chips fall where they may.

It was tempting to do everything we could to keep him alive as long as possible. And for a while, we did. In the end, though, it was clear that living with a breathing tube -- which prevented him from talking and, as he deteriorated, communicating at all -- was not enhancing his quality of life.

Ultimately we, as a family (and with his prior consent), decided to take him off the breathing tube, with a heavy dose of morphine to ease the pain. He died 45 minutes later.

Call that cold and indifferent. Call that God's will. To me, it was just time for him to go. And I'm glad that he, and we, had that choice to make. I wouldn't dream of telling someone else what to do under the same circumstances.