Disillusioned: Anne said she 'could not adapt' to the pace of modern life and new technology.
- The 89-year-old, from Sussex, said she couldn't keep up with modern life
- She claimed new technology had ruined face-to-face human relationships
- She was neither terminally ill nor disabled, but ended life at Swiss clinic
- Case is likely to stoke ongoing debate over the right to die
The 89-year-old felt that her failing health, as well as her belief that people were becoming 'robots' attached to their gadgets, gave her little reason to live.
The woman, who wanted to be known only as Anne, had suffered from worsening health in recent years, but was neither terminally ill nor disabled.
Her case will stoke the ongoing debate over balancing a right to die against the dangers that vulnerable people could be exploited.
Yesterday critics warned that any relaxation in the law in Britain could lead to increased risks for the elderly and disabled.
Anne gave an interview days before she died in which she said computers and email had taken the humanity out of social interaction.
A keen environmentalist, she also said she worried about the impact of overcrowding and pollution on the planet, adding that the only thing that gave her pleasure was feeding birds in her garden in Sussex.
She described her feelings as she walked down supermarket aisles looking for fruit and vegetables to make soup, only to be appalled by the mass of ready meals.
In the interview, published in The Sunday Times, Anne said: 'Why do so many people spend their lives sitting in front of a computer or television?
'I have never had a television, I have only had a radio ... people are becoming more and more remote. We are becoming robots. It is this lack of humanity.
She said she was dismayed that 'all the old-fashioned ways of doing things have gone', adding: 'They say adapt or die. At my age, I feel I can't adapt, because the new age is not an age that I grew up to understand. I see everything as cutting corners.'
Anne was born in Kenya and never married or had children.
A former electrician with the Royal Navy, she was also a keen sportswoman and played tennis until the age of 70.
As she grew older, her health became increasingly poor and she suffered from heart and lung disease.
She described a recent 11-day stint in hospital as 'unadulterated hell' and lived in fear of ending up in a nursing home.
She committed suicide by taking a lethal overdose of barbiturates on March 27, after saying: 'I don't want to die whimpering, but go out with a bang.'
In her submission to the Dignitas clinic, she wrote: 'My daily action to feed birds in the garden is a joy. However, my lack of strength and energy and declining health is a life with no enviable future.
Controversial clinic: The retired art teacher committed suicide at the Dignitas clinic (pictured) in Switzerland.
Her niece Linda, 54, who also wanted to be known only by her first name, agreed to accompany her aunt to Switzerland where they spent a few days sightseeing before going to the clinic.
© Daily Mail
'If you are mentally competent you can rationalise whether or not you want to end your life, after you take a look around and decide you don't like what you see.'
He said there were at least three people in similar circumstances to Anne who ended their lives in Switzerland in recent years.
There is to be a free vote in Parliament on the Assisted Dying Bill, under which two doctors could prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a terminally ill patient with less than six months to live.
Anne's case would not be covered by the new law. Last night it was unclear whether Linda could face police action.
Modern life: Anne gave an interview days before she died in which she said computers and email had taken the humanity out of social interaction. Above, passengers using modern devices on a London Underground train.
Seriously, I am and have been disgusted in humanity on this topic since I knew it was a topic.
People should have a right to decide if they wish to live or die regardless.
We all die eventually. I am not afraid of dieing, just of "how" I die.
The only reason I can see the "state" or Government in any form wanting to remove this choice is due to fear of losing tax payers en mass. People are shamed and called selfish for wanting to die if the life lessons learned and coping mechanisms they were raised with are surpassed by the strain of living. I don't care if one is physically or mentally suffering. It all can make one suffer needlessly.
Consider this. In domestic abuse cases they claim, and I agree, that emotional abuse can be just as bad or worse than physical abuse. So why should there be a difference in determining if one is worthy of the choice to die due to stress and emotional/mental duress that is debilitating beyond their learned ability to cope? How selfish is it to not allow one to choose to end their suffering just because the Gov't wants good living tax payers, or the piling on of emotional duress and shaming the person by saying that other people want them around and then go into detail with nothing but guilt ridden finger pointing, shame, and blame?
Eventually we all have to let someone go. Many of us already have...
I have some reverse shame and blame for those that abuse others mentally like this.
If you love someone and are so attached to them being alive even tho they are suffering. How well do you think they feel of you deep inside for forcing them to deal with the pain they are obviously going through? You can not read their mind. You can not feel their pain be it emotionally nor physically. Sympathy is a pathetic excuse of an emotion that is only self serving to make you feel better thinking you can "relate". Empathy is by far more respectful, less abusive and less selfish. You can understand they are going through pain and can accept the feelings and choices they make in regards to the pain only they can truly feel.
Not allowing people to have this choice is selfish period. So is using a young religion as a weapon of shame selfish, abusive, and oppressive. Many will know exactly what I mean here.
Also I do not understand the hypocritical views of many in society. I have seen one of the key notes stated by The right to life movement being, The child has no choice in this. The child has a "right" to live. Ok, fine. But an adult should have a right to die as well. To have the choice since they can and usually do voice their opinion in this matter provided they are not afraid of the shame and blame campaign. As well as the potential indefinite incarceration in a state approved "mental" facility for the remainder of their lives that they wish to not continue.
On a darker note. We see all around us that our food and water supply is being poisoned and ruined. We see the quality of the necessities in life drop and continue to erode. We see toxic social re engineering that ultimately turn people against each other that should be helping each other. There are powerful psychopaths with too much power to do these things. If one were to speculate, they want the human population on this planet to be reduced with these actions.
So far with the laws and lawlessness of the enforcers that has been so commonly out of control lately and feeling like it is getting worse. I would, as I am sure others would as well, assume the culling of the numbers is gov't sanctioned and approved behind the scenes. Are they really that demented and horrible that they want to force us all to live as miserably long as we can until they decide they do not want it to be "behind the scenes" anymore. Then they get to play the kid in the schoolyard hovering over the ant with a magnifying glass? Do they really get that much pleasure out of watching other humans suffer and manipulate people into being the shamers and blamers to make sure there are plenty of ants?
If they truly believe that the world is so overpopulated, why stop those that have had enough and want to end their role in the game of life from having this choice?
It is my opinion that there should be a choice everywhere. But I also believe that with this choice, there needs to be safety built in. People should be required to seek the opinion of a qualified therapist or multiples to verify the authenticity of the desire to call it quits. Therapists do this very thing daily by locking people up and running their personality and mental tests. They would not be "assisting" directly any more than they already do. No oath of do no harm is breached. Especially if one is to go there just for a mental assessment with no other details given to the therapist.
If we have no choice in being brought into this world, we should have a choice if we wish to stay.