Stella Guedes Nascimento Aguirre Euthanasia – A Study of the Age Long Controversial Issue in Thomas More’s Utopia, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Brian Clark’s Whose Life Is It Anyway? Dissertação de Mestrado em Estudos Ingleses Orientação: Professora Doutora Maria de Jesus Crespo Candeias V. Relvas Universidade Aberta, Lisboa 2006 Euthanasia – A Study of the Age Long Controversial Issue in Thomas More’s Utopia, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Brian Clark’s Whose Life Is It Anyway? Dissertação de Mestrado em Estudos Ingleses/ Apresentado à Universidade Aberta, Lisboa CONTENTS FOREWARD ………………………………………………………………………..… iv CHAPTER I. “The Road Not Taken” …………………………………………………. 1 1.1. Euthanasia – Medical Views in Antiquity ……………………………….. 3 1.2. Euthanasia and Suicide in Ancient History, Philosophy and Literature … 11 1.3. The Start of a New Era – Euthanasia and Suicide in the Middle Ages .… 33 1.4. Euthanasia and Suicide from the Renaissance to the Age of Reason …… 38 1.5. Euthanasia and Suicide from the Romantic period to Modern Times …... 51 1.6. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants” ………..………………………… 62 CHAPTER II. The Arena …………………………………………………………….. 63 2.1. The Classical World Resurrected ………………………………………... 65 2.2. “Silver and Gold Have I None, But Such As I Have I Give unto Thee” ... 67 2.3. Setting out on a Quest …………………………………………………… 72 2.3.1. Dialogue ………………………………………………………. 73 2.3.2. “No Man Is an Island” ………………………………………… 85 2.3.3. “The Nature of a jeu d’esprit” ………………………………… 95 2.4. “The Interruption of Our Pleasures” …………………………………… 111 CHAPTER III. Pulling at Common Threads ……………………………………….. 125 3.1. Reading Between the Lines ……………………………………………. 128 3.2. “Straight from the Horse’s Mouth” ……………………………………. 133 3.3. “O brave new world / That has such people in’t!” …………………….. 152 3.4. “Rams Wrapped in Thermogene Beget no Lambs” ……………………. 153 3.5. “Big Brother Is Watching You” ……………………………………….. 160 ii CHAPTER IV. In Search of a New Jerusalem ……………………………………… 163 4.1. The World Stage ……………………………………………………….. 166 4.2. Setting the Stage for Whose Life Is It Anyway? ………………………... 170 4.3. Catch 22 ………………………………………………………………... 173 4.4. Society Versus Individual ……………………………………………… 177 4.5. “Each Man Must Make His Own Decision” …………………………… 183 4.6. The Curtain Falls …………………………………………………….… 191 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………... 193 BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………………….. 202 ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS …………………………………………………. 217 FILMS ……………………………………………………………………………… 218 iii FOREWORD Manifestly, two of man’s greatest desires stretching far back in time must be; firstly, to live a long, healthy and happy life, and secondly, to have an easy and dignified death. Every society known to us advocates some standing prohibiting the taking of life. Yet, ironically, it is one aspect over which man’s control is greatly limited. Throughout time, thinkers from all walks of life have striven to find answers and solace to man’s many incapacities and doubts above all through rhetorical and artistic devices. Euthanasia – a traditional ethnic issue – is at present a hotly contested issue, and this study has been an endeavour to lift the veil, even if ever so slightly, on how the question of euthanasia has been dealt with in literature. In addressing the impact that such concerns have had over the creative minds of Thomas More (1478-1535), Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) and Brian Clark (1932- ) in their respective literary works – Utopia, Brave New World and Whose Life Is It Anyway? – it has been paramount that I trace the evolution of euthanasia and all its meanings throughout the ages. If we turn to the roots of our Western tradition, it becomes strikingly evident just how many of our present-day approaches to euthanasia have as their bedrock those same philosophical and religious doctrines. Indeed, different cultures have expressed varying attitudes to self-willed death, and within English literature there is no consistency in opinions, which undoubtedly makes it all the more appealing. Unarguably, this diversity concerning the right to death varies because of a whole series of factors, in which Greek and Roman philosophical outlooks, as well as the advent of Christianity, (among other factors naturally), play a crucial role. Bearing in mind the precariousness of straying too far from the chosen path this study hopes to keep to, it has nonetheless proven to be of utmost importance to dedicate a substantial amount of attention to the various contributions made throughout time. Thus, the first chapter (despite its length only loosely stitching ages together) is an attempt to bring some coherence to the rest of the study. Certainly, it has proven to be invaluable insomuch as interconnectivity between the three literary works is concerned. iv The tendency to look backward and contemplate what others did before under similar circumstances, perhaps to reformulate current customs, has been a common practice. And, more and more, what once was accepted as inalterable fact is now promptly cast aside as misrepresentation, fantasy or outdated. Consequently, the need to address these issues has also been unavoidably fundamental for building a sound basis for this study. The Hippocratic Oath is one such instance in which the reference to physician assisted death has been re-examined a lot more closely in more recent years, and certainly it is frequently cited by advocates of pro-life and pro-choice movements. And, by the same token so have the words written by Plato, Seneca and St Augustine, among others, which continue to echo through the words of More, Huxley and Clark, for, such is the prismatic nature of human condition. v I “THE ROAD NOT TAKEN”1 In order to understand the placement of euthanasia in English literature it would be necessary to understand its placement in history, philosophy, religion, culture and law, amongst many other fields of study. This exposition is not concerned with all those tragic deaths that have been portrayed by writers, since the beginning of literature, in which characters have been disposed of. Such an undertaking would, in point of fact, prove to be scintillating, indirectly about the writers themselves, more directly about the social mannerisms and beliefs of their time. Furthermore, there is no intention of entering into any of the conflicting debates, moral or otherwise, of whether euthanasia, in all its forms, is right or wrong, good or bad. Rather, its purpose is to grasp the extent that such power has had over the creative imagination. Indeed, it will be travelling along paths that have been trodden by many other thinkers, in different cultures, for well over two millenniums. This journey of discovery seeks answers to questions such as: how the path came to be laid out; who trod the path before us; and why some chose to part from the main path and follow another route. Whatever the outcome, it promises to be a challenging journey with many snares, obstacles and dead-ends. On this journey, there will be an endeavour to investigate how three well-known English literary writers fared. What stimulated their thoughts? What choices were made when the path forked? Did they, as in the words of the poet Robert Frost, take “the one less travelled by”, and has that “made all the difference”?2 Not only do the three literary works under study (Thomas More’s Utopia, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Brian Clark’s Whose Life Is It Anyway?) 1 Robert Frost, ‘The Road Not Taken,’ The Turning World, ed. D. J. Brindley (Cape: Rustica, 1970) 96. 2 Frost 96. 1 fall under quite different literary genres, but there are also almost five hundred years between the time Utopia was written, 1515-1516, and Whose Life Is It Anyway?, in 1978. Yet, despite this time span, as well as the many other distinctly different features, these three works continue to challenge fundamental truths in society and promote discussion on many levels. Such is the kaleidoscopic fabric of the human condition that whole centuries are interwoven with the thread of debate. The desire to progress towards perfection must indeed stretch out from the very first day of creation. And so, much like Theseus entered the Minotaur’s labyrinth to confront the fearful monster, so too have great thinkers, philosophers, writers and scholars amongst many others, entered the intricate labyrinth of the euthanasia debate. However, unlike Theseus, who found his way out using a magical ball of twine that Ariadne had given him, they have used another powerful tool: that of the written word and sharpened it with their beliefs, wit, intelligence, and humanity. The written word is irrefutably a powerful tool. For the most striking remark spoken today will, in all likelihood, soon be forgotten, whereas the written word, like Homer’s The Odyssey and The Iliad,3 will be remembered for years still to come. Though it is admittedly necessary for practical reasons to do so, literary works cannot really be boxed into just one age like the Renaissance or Romanticism; rather, they should be regarded as embracing features of different ages. Alexander Murray puts it in a nutshell when he writes: … this compound or mixed-age character of literature goes far to explain the dialectic of intellectual progress … different epochs, which might never have 3 Homer was a legendary (or perhaps mythical) early Greek poet traditionally credited with authorship of two major Greek epics The Iliad (c.750-c.725BCE) and The Odyssey (c.743-c.713BCE), among others. It is known for certain that Sir Thomas More, Aldous Huxley and Brian Clark had knowledge of these classical masterpieces of the ancient world, and that they made sporadic reference to many of these works in their own; thus reflecting the relationship between what is read and what is written, no matter how near or distant. 2 found any other way of speaking to each other across the chasm of time, can engage in debate within the literary canon of a single age.”4 Thus, besides reflecting a particular period, literary works also carry the knowledge of past decades and centuries: knowledge that which is often incompatible and highly volatile, and yet it is placed in the same intellectual arena to be disputed. An amateur challenger will quite eagerly acknowledge the experienced opponent’s feats while simultaneously be provocative. A literary ‘mouse’ takes on a literary ‘lion’. For it ought to be remembered that More, for instance, did not start out as a canon of English literature, and he himself took delight in wrestling not only with his contemporaries but also with the literary inheritance left him; including the ancients. It has been this way with the timeless euthanasia debate, as timeless as the debate about free will: ideas and opinions filtered into the consciousness of writers like More, Huxley and Clark, who benefited from the availability of earlier thought. Such stimulating intellectual combat nourished and still continues to nourish thinkers and scholars in all fields of study. In an attempt to grasp the extent that such influence had over these three great creative imaginations, I too have been led to draw on previous thought, not in any way, however, as a challenger, for I am certainly far from being regarded even as a literary ‘mouse’. I shall watch, then, meekly and quietly, not in the arena but rather as a spectator peering out from among the stands. 1.1. Euthanasia – Medical Views in Antiquity Euthanasia is an ethical issue, which has generated confusion and conflict for many centuries, and yet it remains as complex and controversial as ever. Therefore, before proceeding any further, and in the interests of clarity, perhaps it 4 Alexander Murray, Suicide in the Middle Ages: The Curse on Self-Murder, vol. II (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000) 86. 3 would be worthwhile to explore the different meanings the word ‘euthanasia’ has come to have. ‘Euthanasia’ is derived from a combination of two Greek words – eu and thanatos – which literally means ‘a good death’, and originally it was believed to mean a good, easy and gentle death, as opposed to torture, violence and suffering. However, current interpretations understand ‘euthanasia’ to be the act of bringing about a good, easy and gentle death, which many people have come to regard as ‘mercy killing’. Indeed, the pendulum has swayed for ‘euthanasia’. At one time it was concerned with the manner of dying, now it refers to the action one individual has over another to bring about or allow another’s death. It is believed that the word ‘euthanasia’ was coined only a century after the Hippocratic Oath was written in 399BCE. However, it is curious that the ancient Greeks should think the Hippocratic Oath warranted the following passage: “I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such counsel.”5 The ambiguity hanging over this passage is tremendous and it has been subjected to a variety of interpretations. Present-day medical ethicists are, in general, inclined to view this as a rejection of euthanasia.6 There are, nonetheless, those scholars who lean towards the interpretation that it alludes to those physicians who used their medical expertise to murder or that it concerned physicians who cooperated in executions. Activists of the right-to-die movement 5 The Hippocratic Oath (available at www.bma.org.uk). 6 The British Medical Association is opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and regards such measures as going against the fundamental role of doctors as outlined in the Hippocratic Oath. Ultimately, the BMA holds views similar to those expressed by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics: “Issues of life and death do not lend themselves to clear definition, and without that it would not be possible to frame adequate safeguard were it legalised […] it would be next to impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law was not abused” (BMA available at www.bma.org.uk). In accordance with the Policies of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association, it “opposes enactment of any type of federal or state legislation that would require a physician to provide the medicines, techniques, or advice necessary for a patient to pursue a course of suicide, or which would require a physician who is unwilling to participate in suicide to refer the patient to a physician who would be willing to do so” (AMA available at www.ama- assn.policyfiles.org). Both the BMA and the AMA further interpret the passage on the administration of deadly drugs in the Hippocratic Oath as an ancient medical rejection of such acts and thus a violation of the codes of medical ethics. 4