'Permanent Error'
Saturday, 8 February 2014
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Monday, 9 December 2013
Friday, 6 December 2013
OBJECT: Still Life Killing Time, Edmund Clark
Periodically there will be an outcry in the UK over the length of
sentences and parole conditions imposed on violent criminals. ‘Life should mean
life’ goes a common rallying cry amongst those who see prison not as a means of
rehabilitation, but a mechanism of punishment, and perhaps secondarily a means
of protecting the public. However the inevitable result of very long prison
terms is of course increasingly elderly prisoners, and the fate of these
prisoners in a system largely geared towards the young and the strong is a
topic that is less often discussed. Although we know they exist (or we assume
they exist) much of the discussion and debate around the penal system tends to
focus on young and repeat offenders, not those who have been incarcerated for
very long periods, and who may very well live out the remainders of their lives
behind bars.
In Still Life Killing Time, Edmund Clark set out to explore the
experience of inmates in the E Wing of Kingston Prison, Portsmouth, at the time
the only dedicated prison wing for elderly prisoners. As the name implies the
book is a series of still life and environmental photographs, taken around the
prison’s communal areas and in prisoner’s cells. Originally setting out to tell
inmate’s stories through portraiture as he had done in a previous project about
young offenders, Clark turned from this approach to focusing just on still life
photographs in response to the difficulty he felt about consent and the representation
of violent criminals.
The result is a strange set of images, many of which are for me
reminiscent of visits to elderly friends and relatives in their houses and care
homes. Chintzy decorations, religious icons, cut out photographs of classic cars,
royals and rather out of date celebrities. And yet little details come through
that remind you of the context of these objects. What appears to be a fairly
typical, if quite spartan, bedroom has to be reconsidered when one notices a
book titled ‘Manslaughter United’ on the bedside table. A pin board covered in
Celtic FC memorabilia is visually interrupted by a photograph of a famous
murder victim, John Lennon.
Then there are the frankly depressing photographs of very institutional
scenes; cells, waiting rooms, a chair lift, security camera monitors. A rota
for newspapers, a list of daily activities punctuated by a ‘World mental health
day’ sticker. These are still mostly ambigious images, many of which could
exist just as easily in an old person’s home (or psychiatric hospital) as in a
prison. The sense of visually criss-crossing between conflicting indications of
what one is viewing is an unsettling experience, and one which somewhat
reflects the genericity of all such state institutions.
As Simon Norfolk points out in his introduction to the book one has to
remember that the owners of these objects and occupants of these spaces are not
typical old folks, but people who have in many cases committed heinous crimes.
And yet then as Norfolk also acknowledges there is also a sense of
disconnection between what these people may have done in the past, and what
they are capable doing now. If one views a core purpose of the penal system as
being to protect the public from dangerous individuals, it becomes hard to see
what purpose is served by incarcerating those who are unable to carry out
simple tasks without supervision and instruction. One particularly sad
photograph for example shows a list of instructions to guide someone
(presumably suffering from dementia) through the steps they need to take to use
the toilet.
Still Life Killing Time asks a lot of
awkward questions, and it does it in an understated, quiet way which makes the
sensation of looking at it all the more uncomfortable. The resounding message
is that whatever crimes prisoners may have committed the attitude that we
should simply lock them up and throw away the key is clearly not the right one,
morally or practically, and that it’s impossible to ignore the responsibility
for a certain level of care that the state takes on when it incarcerates
people.
Sunday, 1 December 2013
Saturday, 30 November 2013
LANDSCAPE: Chosen Location
The Local Nature Reserve (LNR) at Rye Harbour was established in 1970 by
East Sussex County Council (ESCC) under the National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act of 1949. In November 2011 the management responsibilities were
transferred to the Sussex Wildlife Trust.
The 465 hectares (1149 acres)are generally flat and low lying with no
natural feature above 6m. and entirely within the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and
Rye Bay SSSI (9,137ha.). The high points are the crests of shingle storm ridges
built up over hundreds of years by the combined action of tides and storms. The
low points are the sheltered areas between the ridges where saltmarsh developed
on the regularly inundated land.
The influence of the sea has been greatly reduced during the last one hundred
years by man-made sea defences. In addition, the naturally high water table has
been lowered by a drainage system emptying into the rivers. These two factors
have enabled a traditional agriculture of grazing with some arable. The loss of
wetland has been partly offset by the extraction of the largest shingle ridges,
creating pits. Within the Nature Reserve there are many habitats resulting from
a variety of soils; a gradient of salinity; varying degrees of exposure to wind
and flooding by the sea; water level; and different management practices. The
main habitats can be broadly described as: intertidal; saltmarsh; reclaimed
saltmarsh; drainage ditches; shingle ridges; sand; marsh; pits; scrub and
woodland. Consequently there is a great variety of species with 3,300 recorded
so far. These include more that 150 that are considered rare and endangered in
Britain.
The area also contains considerable historic interest with military
fortifications from the 16th, 19th and 20th centuries, a lifeboat disaster and
evidence of man's early and continuing efforts to defend the land from the sea.
This flat, open and historic landscape, with its low level of development,
proximity to the sea and network of footpaths is popular with visitors. It can
provide a very special experience. There is a good network of footpaths that
enables much of the Nature Reserve to be visited from access points in Rye
Town, Winchelsea Beach and Rye Harbour. There is a small, unmanned information
centre in the car park at Rye Harbour, but our main centre, at Lime Kiln
Cottage, is opened on most days by volunteers (10am-4pm). All five bird
watching hides are accessible to some wheelchairs and provide visitors with a
close view of much wetland wildlife.
Video tour of the Pillboxes I photographed for my final images.
Monday, 25 November 2013
Monday, 11 November 2013
OBJECT: Arguments For and Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
There are arguments both for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Some of the
main arguments are outlined below
Arguments for
euthanasia and assisted suicide
There are
two main types of argument used to support the practices of euthanasia and
assisted suicide. They are the:
•
ethical
argument – that
people should have freedom of choice, including the right to control their own
body and life (as long as they do not abuse any other person’s rights), and
that the state should not create laws that prevent people being able to
choose when and how they die
•
pragmatic
argument – that
euthanasia, particularly passive euthanasia, is already a widespread practice
(allegedly), just not one that people are willing to admit to, so it is
better to regulate euthanasia properly
The pragmatic
argument is discussed in more detail below.
Pragmatic
argument
The pragmatic
argument states that many of the practices used in end of life care
are a type of euthanasia in all but name.
For example,
there is the practice of making a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary
resuscitation' (DNACPR) order, where a person requests not to receive
treatment if their heart stops beating or they stop breathing.
Critics have
argued that DNACPR is a type of passive euthanasia because a person is denied
treatment that could potentially save their life.
Another
controversial practice is known as palliative sedation. This is where a person
who is experiencing extreme suffering, for which there is no effective
treatment, is put to sleep using sedative medication. For example, palliative
sedation is often used to treat burns victims who are expected to die.
While
palliative sedation is not directly carried out for the purpose of ending
lives, many of the sedatives used carry a risk of shortening a person’s
lifespan. Therefore, it could be argued that palliative sedation is a type
of active euthanasia.
The pragmatic
argument is that if euthanasia in these forms is being carried out anyway,
society might as well legalise it and ensure that it is properly regulated.
It should be
stressed that the above interpretations of DNACPR and palliative sedation are
very controversial and are not accepted by most doctors, nurses and palliative
care specialists.
Read more about
the alternatives to
euthanasia for responses to these interpretations.
Arguments
against euthanasia and assisted suicide
There are four
main types of argument used by people who are against euthanasia and
assisted suicide. They are known as the:
•
religious
argument – that
these practices can never be justified for religious reasons, for example many
people believe that only God has the right to end a human life
•
‘slippery
slope’ argument – this is
based on the concern that legalising euthanasia could lead to significant
unintended changes in our healthcare system and society at large that we would
later come to regret
•
medical ethics
argument – that
asking doctors, nurses or any other healthcare professional to carry out
euthanasia or assist in a suicide would be a violation of fundamental medical
ethics
•
alternative
argument – that
there is no reason for a person to suffer either mentally or physically
because effective end of life treatments are available; therefore,
euthanasia is not a valid treatment option but represents a failure on the part
of the doctor involved in a person’s care
Religious
argument
The most common
religious argument is that human beings are the sacred creation of God, so
human life is by extension sacred.
Only God should
choose when a human life ends, so committing an act of euthanasia or assisting
in suicide is acting against the will of God and is sinful.
This belief, or
variations on it, is shared by members of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic
faiths.
The issue is
more complex in Hinduism and Buddhism. Scholars from both faiths have
argued that euthanasia and assisted suicides are ethically acceptable acts in
some circumstances, but these views do not have universal support among Hindus
and Buddhists.
‘Slippery
slope’ argument
The slippery
slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by
extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed
that should never have been crossed and a dangerous precedent has been set.
The concern is
that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its
attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia.
Also, legalised
voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to a wide range of unforeseen
consequences, such as those described below.
•
Very ill people
who need constant care or people with severe disabilities may feel pressured to
request euthanasia so that they are not a burden to their family.
•
Legalising
euthanasia may discourage research into palliative treatments,
and possibly prevent cures for people with terminal illnesses being found.
•
Occasionally, doctors
may be mistaken about a person’s diagnosis and outlook, and the person may
choose euthanasia due to being wrongly told that they have a terminal
condition.
Medical ethics
argument
The medical
ethics argument, which is similar to the ‘slippery slope’
argument, states that legalising euthanasia would violate one of the most
important medical ethics, which, in the words of the International Code of
Medical Ethics, is: ‘A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of
preserving human life from conception’.
Asking doctors
to abandon their obligation to preserve human life could damage the
doctor–patient relationship. Causing death on a regular basis could become
a routine administrative task for doctors, leading to a lack of compassion when
dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.
In turn, people
with complex health needs or severe disabilities could become distrustful of
their doctor’s efforts and intentions. They may think that their doctor
would rather ‘kill them off’ than take responsibility for a complex and
demanding case.
Alternative
argument
The alternative
argument is that advances in palliative care and mental health treatment mean
there is no reason why any person should ever feel that they are suffering
intolerably, whether it is physical or mental suffering or both.
According to
this argument, if a person is given the right care, in the right
environment, there should be no reason why they are unable to have a
dignified and painless natural death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)