519: an offered opinion on a thing

“I believe that decisions about the timing and manner of death belong to the individual as a human right. I believe it is wrong to withhold medical methods of terminating life painlessly and swiftly when an individual has a rational and clear-minded sustained wish to end his or her life.” 

Professor A C Grayling, Dignity in Dying Patron 

I was guided via twitter, as happens, to a blog post I find so baffling and stupid I just had to speak up; so here goes. It's written by a man called Simon Duffy and is called How Euthanasia leads to Eugenics. I've never heard of Simon Duffy and know nothing about him; that's not meant to be a snide who is he comment, just a statement of fact. According to his biography he is leader of The Centre for Welfare Reform, of which I also know nothing about, but it seems decent. It aims "to increase social justice, promote citizenship, strengthen families and enrich our communities," which sounds good to me; and although I am going to comment negatively on Simon Duffy's blog post I make no similar comment about the good work of the Centre for Welfare Reform. (At least, I assume they do good work, because as I mentioned I've never heard of them!)

How Euthanasia leads to Eugenics

…a [Nazi] Ministry of Justice Commission on the Reform of the Criminal Code drafted a similar law sanctioning "mercy killing" of people suffering from incurable diseases. The law read, in part:

"Clause 1: Whoever is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness which is a major burden to him or others, can request mercy killing by a doctor, provided it is his express wish and has the approval of a specially empowered doctor.

"Clause 2: The life of a person who because of incurable mental illness requires permanent institutionalisation and is not able to sustain an independent existence, may be prematurely terminated by medical procedures in a painless and covert manner."
From Forgotten Crimes by Susanne E Evans

Notice that the first clause is almost exactly what those seeking to advance euthanasia in the UK are putting forward as a reasonable legal measure. And notice the easy and natural step to by-passing the question of voluntary choice for those who might be deemed lacking mental capacity.

There is hardly a break between euthanasia and eugenics - the first creates the licence to ignore the dignity of human life, the second gives others the duty to ignore it.

I really don't know where to start with the blind, vicious and bloody embarrassing stupidity of this statement.  (I quoted Simon Duffy's post in full as it is short and appears convinced of its own completeness. Read the original here.) The title How Euthanasia leads to Eugenics sets out a difficult and bizarre idea and claims that it will offer evidence How.

Let's be clear: Eugenics is an awful idea and one that has no place at all in a civilised, humane and egalitarian society. But euthanasia is a good thing; the right of a terminally ill individual to choose the time and place of their own death, to allow them the dignity of choosing the end over a long and painful drawn out death.

Simon Duffy seems to believe that because a statement numbered "Clause 1" about euthanasia is followed in some list somewhere by a statement numbered "Clause 2" about eugenics, that this some how magically constitutes evidence of 1 leading to 2. I'd like to test this logic and see if it holds up to scrutiny by writing my own list:

Clause 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Clause 2: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

The first clause is Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the second is from the bible, Exodus 22:18. They clearly have nothing in common; I have just semi-randomly chosen them to appear in a list together. I chose the first because I agree with it, and the second because I don't. It's a stupid and pathetic point I'm attempting to make, but no stupider or more pathetic than the one Simon Duffy fumbles with.
(From now on whenever I mention clauses I'm talking about the ones Simon Duffy quotes, and not the irrelevant ones I just picked.)

He claims there is an easy and natural step between the two clauses, from voluntary in the first to involuntary in the second in the case of individuals whose mental illness does not allow their consent. I can see no easy or natural step there, nor any evidence that their may be one lurking in the shadows. One is voluntary, the other is not; these are not similar, they are opposite. Where is this easy and natural step? Where is it?

After his weak, fleeting and begging the question argument to support his hypothesis comes the poor conclusion: "There is hardly a break between euthanasia and eugenics - the first creates the licence to ignore the dignity of human life, the second gives others the duty to ignore it."

I argue that the right of a terminally ill patient, in full mental capacity to understand their choice, to choose to die is demanded by human dignity. Personally if I was in constant agonising pain, immobile in a bed, living with the knowledge of a certain imminent death I would demand the right to choose my own way out. If I was suffering from a degenerative brain disease, during the time I was still with it I would like to request that when it got to the point when I was no longer able to think, write, and recognise my loved ones I be euthanized. At that point, I believe there would be nothing left of me.

The second clause needs further consideration before a conclusion can be reached. A point that Duffy has failed to mention is that it refers to "incurable mental illness requir[ing] permanent institutionalisation". If this was on the Criminal Code of Nazi Germany it was written not only in a part of the world where illiberalism was destroying millions of lives, but it was written in a time when mental illness was much less well understood.

In the past just about any mental illness was considered incurable and people were institutionalised with all sorts of things that today are treatable. They even considered all sorts of crazy things to be mental illness that we don't in today's more enlightened times; homosexuality for example.

Of course the second clause is disgusting, but its probable meaning when it was written bears little relation to how it can be interpreted today; and above all there is no reason to suggest it logically follows from the first clause.

In conclusion:
Reasonably consented euthanasia: good
Eugenics: bad
Obviously.

(If my argument comes across as rambling or confusing, don't worry, it probably is. It's not supposed to be an essay; I'm not handing it in to be marked. I've just rushed it out. It's more of a rant than anything.)

“I wish to be treated as a responsible adult and believe that people should be legally able to register their wish for an assistance with suicide, if needed. I support Dignity in Dying primarily to help change the law on assisted suicide.” 

Sir Michael Holroyd CBE, Dignity in Dying Patron

254: My "Private" Library

The last post about the drawing class forthcoming at BLANKSPACE, and the other life-drawing classes held around Manchester has lead me to delve into my collections of art books, graphic novels, and paper ephemera.  Assisted by my trusty scanner I have emerged with a selection of nudes, life studies, and erotica, in drawing, design, photography and sculpture.  There seemed to be a lot to choose from, and to keep me on my toes I refrained from lazily ducking into Erotic Art (Taschen).  Had I taken that route I might have been tempted to court controversy by reproducing Jeff Koons’ Butt Red (Close Up), 1991; then discussion here would certainly have been skewed off towards pornography and art, then I might have need to have included some Robert Mapplethorpe, and I’m too immature for that.

Anyway, this isn’t really about life drawing; it’s more just a chance for me to go through books and stuff.  Of course today’s bookish trek is strung around the themes already mentioned, so be warned; it may not remain entirely clean, especially if you find offensive the idea of an adult Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz enjoying the carnal pleasures of Oz.  This image (below) is taken from the giant triple-volume graphic novel Lost Girls by husband and wife team Alan Moore (author, famous for Watchmen, From Hell, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) and Melinda Gebbie (illustrator of pornographic and feminist comics).  Lost Girls tells the story of a gathering of three elderly women, Alice (in Wonderland), Wendy (Peter Pan), and Dorothy (Wizard of Oz).  Their backgrounds are from upper, middle and lower class respectively.  Together they reminisce about their lives, particularly their sexual experiences and fantasies.

Now let’s look at the two great Renaissance Davids; Donatello’s David (c. 1440s), and Michelangelo’s David (1501-1504).  Donatello’s was the “first unsupported standing work of bronze cast during the Renaissance, and the first free-standing nude male sculpture made since antiquity”.  It is life size at 158 cm, and extremely odd looking.  He has a very ambiguous body with large (for a man) boobs, a tiny little willy, and an effeminate stance, contrasted with the decapitated head he stands above.  There has been plenty of scholarly discussion as to the meaning of David’s appearance and what it says about Donatello, but no real conclusions.  In contrast Michelangelo’s marble David stands at the bizarre, monumental height of 17 foot.  He still has a funny little pecker though.  They both have a just off weirdness about them.

Over in Japan, as I do everywhere, I held on to flyers, pamphlets and postcards of various descriptions.  Here are a couple of the juicier ones from the ephemera shoeboxes.  Their artistic merit and aesthetic quality is a matter of opinion.  The first is an advert for Bar Karma Sutra, sensuous, chill space, and the second is a tart card-type advert for the services of a prostitute, Honey Bee.  In case you are wondering, no; no I didn’t.  The prostitute flyers are regularly left in letter boxes of apartment buildings.

This image is taken from the exhibition catalogue from Dr. Gunther von Hagens’ Body Worlds.  Dr. Hagens is the anatomist famous for his televised autopsies and his plastination technique of preserving bodies.  I saw his amazing exhibition at MOSI (Manchester’s Museum of Science and Industry) a couple of years ago, where the crowds of people were afforded the views of gorilla testicles, a man doing the jumping splits literally, and this man stepping away from his skeleton.  The exhibition continues to grow and change and tour the world, and if you ever get the chance to see it, do.  I cannot recommend it highly enough to do it justice.  The best thing you will ever see.  And fully interactive; by that I mean you can be one of the exhibits simply by donating your body.

Robert Häusser is a photographer I know very little about, except that this photograph, In the Housemaid’s Room, 1960, is totally mesmerising.  He doesn’t even have an English Wikipedia page, although he has a fairly substantial German one.  This photo is taken from Taschen’s Icons series book 20^th Century Photography.

Every artist should have some sort of anatomy book (whether they ever use it or not is another matter), and I have Anatomy for the Artist.  To be honest if you are reading this blog there is a fair to middling chance that you also have this book.  It’s illustrated by some guy called Tom Flint.  Some of the pictures are a bit shit, but this one, The Skin; Old Age is fantastic.  The stooped over, sagging old specimen looks great.

Last we return to the graphic novel, this time one slightly cuter and more innocent; Blankets by Craig Thompson.  It’s an autobiographical tale describing “what it feels like to sleep next to someone for the first time”.  It’s beautiful, epic and masterfully done, and another of those things that I can’t recommend highly enough.  It’s better than Lost Girls, and Michelangelo’s David; combined or not combined, either way.  Buy it, read it, stick it on the shelf and admire it.

And so concludes this trip through the strange, seedy, sexy, studious, and other s words, of my own private library.  Now I can hear the oven beeping at me telling me the chicken is ready.  Gotta go; bye.

163: Resolution, Resolution, Resolution.

Happy New Year everyone!  Time for the traditional resolution, so let’s get this over with quickly:  finish a novel, get a job in the non-dead end department, and begin to make some savings, be happy and healthy.  Maybe as a final flourish of writerly pretension I could add to that list start and finish reading one or more of the four super-long books cluttering my shelves.  For posterity and as a declaration of intent I will now state the tomes in question: Ulysses by James Joyce, War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, and Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace.  Perhaps a further resolution should be to get over the obsessive need to make lists, and the studenty habit of name dropping Joyce and Tolstoy.

I’m aching at the base of my spine from sitting up, on this futon in my parent’s spare room, with the laptop on my knee; my eyes are sore from staring at the screen in the dark, to the point where the little red zigzag informing me that ‘studenty’ isn’t a word is actually moving back and forth trying to bore its way into my eye like a parasitic worm.  These niggles bring up another possible resolution; to do the blog at a less unsociable opportunity i.e. not in bed.  For that to happen I must tidy up the office (which has had the door shut for a couple of months to keep the mess out of mind) and reclaim my desk from all the papers and paint pots.  Anyone got a crappy desktop computer I can have; a dedicated writing one not connected to the internet (not much use for blogging, but should be great for getting some proper writing done).

Given enough time I might just keep coming up with resolutions.  Next New Year I want to be away in a hot country, or even just somewhere different and exciting.  Or perhaps I could take a trip to Berlin or Osaka.  Anywhere but Great Britain.  A change is as good as a rest, but both of them together should be even better.  I will have had a massive two and a bit weeks off work when I return to that shit-hole (probably on Thursday) but of course it won’t be enough.  I haven’t given the place much thought over the last week and a bit, and whenever anyone has asked me about it I’ve basically ignored them.  Over the last day or so, thoughts of work have begun to creep back into my mind.  Having had two weeks off work, but not made any headway on the novel, or any contribution to Blank Space makes me feel like a lazy piece of shit.  I’ll get back to work with the feeling that I have wasted my time off, despite the fun, force-feeding and frolics.  And of course the truth is I have wasted my time.  Such time off is a gift that I should have used productively and, Negative Nelly that I am, I anticipate the return to work eating my life up.

And so springs forth another resolution or two: Stop being so negative about everything, and stop moaning about work.  Work is shit, but so what.  Ignore it and focus on the many good things in life.  I enter the new year engaged to be married to the most amazing person I have ever met, I have a flat, great friends I have known for years, a load of books and stuff, a niece and a god son, a daily blog edging towards 200 entries, possibility of a job interview with the BBC, a load of exciting opportunities with Blank Media, an almost finished script, and two well formed ideas for novels.  What could possibly go wrong?  Nothing!