I read Diana Dobson’s letter with interest (February 22) on the assisted dying debate in which she cites the self-sacrifice of Captain Oates in March 1912 as an example of someone “relieving the burden” for others. Historical evidence of Robert Falcon Scott’s ill-fated Antarctic expedition indicates there is more to the story.
As expedition leader, Scott had left written orders in October 1911 that British dog-teams were to come south to “meet” the party of men returning from the Pole. However, this rescue never happened.
Evidence indicates that the dog-driver Cecil Meares falsely claimed at base that Scott had ordered that “the dogs should not be risked”, allowing Meares to skip his duties, stay at base and sail back to civilisation in 1912 instead of 1913.
Meanwhile, Oates informed Scott of his frostbitten foot on March 2, yet slogged on for a further 14 days. Once we understand that the polar party were expecting dog teams to rescue them, as per Scott’s written orders, Oates’ actions in leaving the tent are clearly those of someone who wanted to survive. Doubtless he was hoping, to the last, that the dog teams might still arrive to save them all.
Seen properly, Captain Oates’ story tragically illustrates the need to protect the vulnerable. Where there’s life, there’s hope: we need only look at Esther Rantzen, who enthusiastically promoted the “terminally ill adults (end of life)” bill only to find that her terminal cancer is now thankfully being “kept at bay” with new medication. We are in dangerous waters once we decide it is more convenient to end lives than make efforts to save them.
Karen May
London WC1, UK
