News

The storm over Russel Ogden's assisted-suicide research has been much in the news lately.

The Kwantlen Polytechnic University sociology instructor wants to witness people killing themselves. Kwantlen withdrew its support for Mr. Ogden's proposed "Observation and Documentation of a NuTech Deathing," citing "unacceptable legal risks."

"NuTech Deathing," for those wondering, denotes suicide technologies considered quicker and less painful than the old standbys. A carbon monoxide asphyxiation rig called the CO Genie is among them.

I first read about Mr. Ogden the day after Canada Day. He was on the cover of one local newspaper. On the other: the story of the woman who threatened to jump from the Ironworkers Memorial bridge. My first reaction was what a cold place our city had become for people with a passing suicidal impulse. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon shrieking on the one side at the "outrage" that police had closed the bridge for six hours to talk the woman down. And researchers such as Mr. Ogden apparently lining up to watch.

I've revised my impression, on reflection. Mr. Falcon still should be acutely embarrassed. But Mr. Ogden's situation is more complicated. His research, which previously has resulted in disputes with two other universities, was approved by peers and by Kwantlen's research ethics board. At best, it is administrative incompetence that a contrary legal opinion came in three years late. At worst, the university is subverting the intellectual freedom of its researchers.

That being said, the arguments of Mr. Ogden's defenders are not without flaws.

Those defending him - Mr. Ogden won't himself, citing concerns about job security - say legal objections to his work are unfounded. Both Simon Fraser University criminologist John Lowman and Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, argue that while aiding and abetting a suicide may be illegal, witnessing one is not. Dr. Lowman acknowledges a certain "yuck factor" might arise in contemplating this notion. But both men are convinced that Mr. Ogden would only be witnessing.

The source of their confidence is the research protocol Mr. Ogden drew up with the help of lawyers.

"The research is about decisions to proceed as well as decisions not to proceed," Dr. Lowman says. "There's an understanding they have to sign [indicating] that they don't have to go through with it, that he's not encouraging them."

No doubt the argument has some legal merit. People sign deathbed wills and deathbed confessions, after all. But on a human level, the argument is less reassuring. Mr. Ogden doesn't want the person to die, of course. But can his passive presence be viewed as anything other than endorsement of their choice to do so?

In an article Mr. Ogden sent me (in lieu of an interview), a member of the American Sociological Association's ethics committee is quoted describing looking for assistance in suicide as "a call for legitimization." Without wanting the death, in other words, the assistant greatly facilitates it by means far more important than helping the person strap on a carbon monoxide mask. They facilitate by their acquiescence. And yet we are to accept - at the vehement insistence of Dr. Lowman and Dr. Turk - that the passive researcher in the room does not contribute to the same joint offering of legitimacy that creates the ethical space in which the suicide can occur.

The possibility that Mr. Ogden might be facilitating these deaths, despite his genuine attempts to insulate himself from the proceedings via memoranda and protocol, is the critical question in this matter. And the answer is important regardless of whether you support assisted suicide in certain cases. Because if he is, not only would Kwantlen's legal concerns be justified, he would also be polluting his own research results.

I think that sense of death changing everything - jamming the well-intentioned tools of science, in Mr. Ogden's case - is why the public recoiled when Mr. Falcon made his comments about the tragedy of a woman contemplating suicide. To not close the bridge, to not absorb a public inconvenience in the spirit of community life, would be the same as facilitating, legitimizing, her jump. To drive by in your car on your way to the Canada Day barbecue would be the same as standing at the rail and watching. And judging from the long list of comments appended to the newspaper's online version of the story, most people respond to that idea by saying, "Yuck."

Dr. Lowman and Dr. Turk are absolutely right in at least one respect. We would probably all be better off if we could understand that woman's decision. Luckily we have a chance now, because she's still alive.

Timothy Taylor is a novelist

and journalist based in Vancouver. His latest novel is Story House.