Towards the end of Disney’s The Jungle Book, there is a climactic fight between the tiger Shere Khan, and Baloo the bear, who is protecting Mowgli from the tiger’s claws. The bear is no match for the tiger, and soon lies stricken on the jungle floor; only Mowgli’s use of man’s great secret, fire, causes the tiger to flee. But it is too late to save Baloo. A wise and consoling Bagheera comforts the grieving Mowgli, and sings a song of valedictory praise to Baloo’s greatness. Only, Baloo isn’t dead. Unlike Bagheera and Mowgli, we see the bear’s eyes open, and hear his mumbling delight at his own magnificence (“…he’s crackin’ me up…I wish my mother could’ve heard this…”). As the panther draws to a close, and he and Mowgli start to leave, Baloo suddenly looks up and calls out: “Hey! Don’t stop now Baggy, you’re doing great! There’s more – lots more!”
The point is, of course, that not everyone who appears dead, or in a coma, or a persistent vegetative state is necessarily unaware of their surroundings. Sometimes, we now learn, patients who appear to have no sign of consciousness can hear and understand every word that’s being said.
Recent elegant research – research of the “d’oh, why didn’t I think of that!” kind – (news story here, original paper here) shows that a small number of patients who appear to be in a vegetative state and fully incommunicado, are in fact aware of their surroundings. They are receiving loud and clear; it is just the transmit button that doesn’t work.
It is important to note that until the tests were run, some of these patients were believed to have no consciousness whatsoever. How wrong, we now find, we were.
We shall never know whether Tom Inglis, first damaged and then killed by his mother, was set to receive. Prior to his mother’s first attempt to kill him, they were nursing reports of improvements in his condition. Yet, his mother knew best. She had ‘love in her heart’, and claimed maternal authority – and that meant terminating Tom.
We can now see all too clearly how dangerous such claims to maternal authority can be. Just as with doctors, mother doesn’t always know best. Wilful intentional killing – murder, that is – of an individual presumed to lack consciousness risks killing a sentient being. It can never be acceptable.
And yet, Inglis continues to show no remorse. She continues to claim maternal anguish and authority. She is even to appeal – on the grounds of slow burn provocation – a defence most commonly used in domestic violence. What, we might ask, did silent Tom do to provoke Frances Inglis?
I write from the standpoint of being a carer – some ten years now – of someone I love dearly. The circumstances are different from those of Tom Inglis.
Initially, you are swamped with many an emotion of loving; sadness, grief, compassion and anger at the given situation. But everyone is there for you.
As time passes, everything changes. You find you really do not have many good friends. The contact from relative diminishes. You become angry about YOUR situation. You become angry at and resentful of your loved one for changing YOUR life, but you have to internalise it. I consider these feelings are understandable. It is a stage in bereavement, for you have surely lost the person you love. If memory serves me well, I was in this stage for a good six months.
Then you move on. You accept. You adapt. And life becomes good again. Different, but good.
As said, my circumstances are different from those of Tom and Francis Inglis. I think her burden would have been a lot heavier than mine – for indeed, at times, your loved one does become a heavy load to carry. I do not know what she had been feeling or felt. She may have become stuck in the bereavement phase. Perhaps, her coping skills were not good. She may have had little support.
However, she did not have the right to kill her son. If she had voiced her inability to cope and her intent to kill, swift action would have been taken to place Tom safely.
Nikita – Dr No is not for a moment saying Frances Inglis was not in a horrible dreadful position. But what he is saying is that murder, which is undoubtedly what it was, is not the solution – for all kinds reasons, only one of which he has highlighted in this post (the presumed vegetable may not in fact be a vegetable, he/she might be sentient). The reasoning has parallels with one of the strongest arguments against capital punishment (miscarriage of justice).
The compassion we may feel for an individual facing what Frances Inglis had to endure would be better directed away from sloppy and dangerous concepts of ‘mercy killing’ with ‘love in the heart’ towards providing proper support for people in her position which, as you correctly point out, is a form of grief and bereavement: the individual may still be alive, but the person you once knew has gone.
Although it did not come across with any degree of clarity in my post, I do agree with you on all points made.
I was attempting to put myself in Frances Inglis’s shoes. If she was stuck in the anger stage of bereavement, murdering Tom would have relieved HER suffering and in doing so, justified and given credence to her belief that she was doing the right thing. Was she doing the right thing for herself or for her son? For herself, I think, but I would imagine, she would argue and firmly believe she acted in love of her son.
Unfortunately, in the real world, compassion and support are short lived and in short supply.
Very interesting view points.
Was ‘mother love’ or a mother ‘with love in her heart’ doing best for her son or best for her. Unless we can know of the psychological make up of Mrs. Inglis, we cannot know!
However I have another angle on this scenario.
Was Tom’s mother a spiritual person or just seeing the human condition as a cut and dried process of life (alive and kicking) and death (vegetative state)?
Having had a near death experience where I entered a dark tunnel with a glorious light at the end. To suddenly having a bright light all around but being able to hear what the Nurses were saying, I personally would not be able to fatally inject or turn off the life support system which would kill my child.
Last night I read the story of “Killer son Ralph Stephenson” here:
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/03/30/killer-son-ralph-stephenson-may-be-freed-61634-26134280 A bit of googling showed it warranted a very brief mention in yesterdays Daily Mirror and more fully in two local papers – but nowhere else.
Ralph Stephenson killed his seriously ill father in his hospital bed to “put him out of his misery”. He strangled him with such force it caused nine fractures to his ribs and a fracture to his larynx. He is likely to be freed.
Francis Inglis got life for a “mercy killing”.
In this case it would appear that it is more acceptable for a son to murder his father than for a mother to murder her son. Or is it that the dividing line between right and wrong has become permanently blurred and that the unacceptable has become acceptable.
It concerns me that this story was not picked up by the nationals. It would appear that “mercy killings” are old news.