On Friday of last week, the state legislature of California passed a bill to allow assisted suicide. If Governor Jerry Brown signs the bill into law, California will become the fifth state in the Union to make assisted suicide legal.
How do advocates of assisted suicide justify allowing doctors to assist people in killing themselves? Supporters typically appeal to personal autonomy, in one form or another, as a primary justification. For example, Mark Leno, a Democrat in the California legislature, said of the bill, “It allows for individual liberty and freedom, freedom of choice.” The Supreme Court of Canada, in their recent decision to legalize assisted suicide, expressed the need to balance between “the autonomy and dignity of a competent adult who seeks death as a response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition” and “the sanctity of life and the need to protect the vulnerable.” (Footnote: Supreme Court Ruling) A practice previously considered murder or manslaughter under the law they ruled legal in the name of “autonomy and dignity.”
Lastly, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, known as “Dr. Death” for his role in dozens of suicides, once stated in court, “The patient’s autonomy always, always should be respected, even if it is absolutely contrary—the decision is contrary—to the best medical advice and what the physician wants.” (Footnote: PBS Frontline transcript) In other words, if the patient wants to use Kevorkian’s “suicide machine” to inject herself with lethal drugs, it’s her choice.
This raises the question for me: If personal autonomy were truly a primary justification for allowing assisted suicide, then why is the choice limited to adults suffering a “grievous and irremediable medical condition”? Why can’t a healthy young woman walk into an Oregon clinic and get the same suicide pills as cancer patient Brittany Maynard?
Where the practice is legal in North America, the law restricts access to doctor assisted suicide to a small minority of people—namely, the sick, the suffering, and the dying. The healthy, or those who merely find life meaningless, or even the severely depressed, must rely on other means to kill themselves. Instead of taking a neat and tidy dose of pills prescribed by a doctor in the comfort of their own home, they are forced to choose among less attractive, somewhat messier options, like jumping off a bridge, lying across train tracks, hanging, putting a gun in their mouth, or slitting their wrists.
Why can’t all people who want to kill themselves be allowed to get medical help in order to do so? Why this discrimination of the law based on one’s health?
Clearly, it isn’t simply a matter of saying, “The healthy and the young don’t want to kill themselves, and, therefore, there is no need to extend access for doctor assisted suicide to everyone.” Suicide is relatively common on university campuses, but, quite obviously, this is not a celebrated fact, and measures are taken to prevent them, like the decision to place netting under bridges around Cornell University. No one protested the netting by saying that we should allow adults to exercise their freedom of choice or liberty in killing themselves.
Suicide is not illegal in Canada and the United States. In fact, the British Columbia Supreme Court Justice based her decision to strike down the law against assisted suicide on this very fact. Healthy people, she reasoned, can commit suicide legally. Therefore, since disabled people like the plaintiff, Gloria Taylor, cannot kill themselves, the law against assisted suicide is discriminatory. The sick ought to have equal access to the right to kill oneself! (Ironically, because of her ruling, the healthy are now prevented from the same medically assisted suicide that the sick enjoy.)
Why, then, is there such a concerted effort to prevent suicide in those who are not sick and dying? Shouldn’t we encourage people to embrace their “individual liberty” and “freedom of choice” in how and when they die?
Something more than just personal autonomy is at work in the advocacy for assisted suicide.
The obvious response here is that we allow doctors to help people kill themselves in order to relieve suffering, which, many would argue, goes beyond just physical pain to include the indignity of watching one’s body deteriorate and lose normal function. Surely no one with an ounce of compassion would wish the suffering endured by Brittney Maynard and her family on anyone. The end is to relieve suffering; the means is to give the sufferer enough pills to end her life with.
The question, Does the end justify the means? is not my interest here. I’m not here concerned with whether assisted suicide is morally acceptable. The question I want to ask is, Why does suffering set apart those people who can get the magic pills? Why can’t healthy people get them too, especially if they so desire them? Why are only the sick allowed to “die with dignity”?
Again, why this discrimination of the law based on one’s health? Why do we celebrate that sick people can get help killing themselves, but mourn the fact that healthy people commit suicide? I’d love to know what you think.
A Philosopher's Take 
Lage
September 22, 2015
I agree (or hold) that everyone should have access to legal assisted suicide. One could argue that we should limit it to those that have at least had a medical evaluation (at no cost), so a medical professional can make sure that a person is mentally competent to make that decision. This may even involve a 3 day waiting period or the like so that someone in an acute irrational mental state has time to regain composure before finalizing their decision, etc. However, if it can be shown that a person is mentally competent and not in an acute irrational mental state, then a right to bodily autonomy and a right to medical care should guarantee the right for legally assisted suicide.
Not to get into moral economics, I’ll also mention that allowing a person to do so carries with it a number of other benefits for society because that person will no longer be using resources that could go to those that want to live and flourish.
LikeLike
Lage
September 22, 2015
I’ll also add that a person that chooses to commit suicide may by that fact alone be considered “sick” in some sense and therefore should have the same access to assisted suicide as any other “sick” person. It all comes down to modifying the definition and classification of “sickness” in order to include all courses of medical action that will in theory make the patient the most satisfied. If a patient seeks medical care because they are not satisfied in some way with their state of being (whether fundamentally physical or psychological), then perhaps they should indeed be classified as “sick”.
LikeLike
Gordon Hawkes
September 23, 2015
Hi Lage,
Thanks for the comments.
One quick clarification (which you seem to be aware of): my article isn’t arguing either for or against assisted suicide. I may lay out my position in a future post, but for the moment, my main question is, Why should it be limited to just the suffering if personal autonomy is the justification for the practice? Why the apparent inconsistency in lawmakers’ reasoning?
I agree with your second comment. It raises a very important question in this debate: How do we define the terms, such as “irremediable medical condition” (in the Supreme Court of Canada decision), that limit the size of the group which has access to assisted suicide?
There have been some very notable international cases that highlight the inevitable ambiguity of such terms. For instance, a physically healthy 24-year-old woman was granted the right to be euthanized because of her “intractable and unbearable pain” (http://europe.newsweek.com/healthy-24-year-old-granted-right-die-belgium-329504). Note: Euthanasia involves, typically, a doctor administering a lethal injection rather than giving someone pills to take on their own, as in assisted suicide.
Or consider a 23-year-old English rugby player whose parents took him to Switzerland to get an assisted suicide after an injury left him paralyzed from the chest down (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/oct/18/11). He didn’t want a “second-class life”.
Again, if personal autonomy is the primary justification for assisted suicide, then, according to that logic, the choice should be open to all.
LikeLike
Lage
September 23, 2015
“One quick clarification (which you seem to be aware of): my article isn’t arguing either for or against assisted suicide.”
Understood. Which was why I wrote “I agree (or hold) that…” because in the case that you weren’t offering your own position but rather just an argument to consider, I hold that the hypothetical argument you presented is indeed valid and additionally I personally hold the view that assisted suicide should be open to all.
“Again, if personal autonomy is the primary justification for assisted suicide, then, according to that logic, the choice should be open to all.”
I agree. Well, I specified that the right to personal/bodily autonomy combined with a right to medical care (if this was also granted) as logically allowing for the implicit right to assisted suicide. I think both rights are needed since the assistance would likely come from someone in the medical community that is trained/qualified to implement/prescribe such medication, procedures, etc.
LikeLike
Gordon Hawkes
September 24, 2015
(See comment below.) Here’s another example, just in the news today, of the dichotomy between the way we treat the suicides of the sick and the way we treat the suicides of the healthy: “Teen Faces Manslaughter for Encouraging Suicide” http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/teen-faces-manslaughter-for-encouraging-suicide/ar-AAeIMEr?li=AAacUQk&ocid=mailsignoutmd
LikeLike
Lage
September 25, 2015
Yeah, I don’t know all the details of that particular case, but from what I’ve read it sounds like there may be some merit in prosecuting Carter so I’m not sure if this is the best example to show the problems with the legality of suicide and all accomplices involved, since she apparently encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide even AFTER he had second thoughts (i.e. “…text messages sent by Carter in which she told her boyfriend to get back in his truck when he had second thoughts.”). If this is true, then it wasn’t merely a matter of her supporting her boyfriend’s decision, but of also coercing him when he was in a mentally vulnerable and unstable state.
I think it is prudent for people that are aware of other people’s plans to commit suicide, that they encourage them to seek mental health counseling first, to see if their state is acute, repairable, etc., and to exhaust their options before finally choosing suicide after those other options have been exhausted. Had Carter done that, and known that her boyfriend had already exhausted those options and decided there was no other way, and had her boyfriend not expressed uncertainty with his decision (and/or Carter not coercing him despite that uncertainty), then I think there would have been justification for her to support her boyfriend’s decision with no legal repercussions. My two cents anyway, with the limited number of facts I’ve obtained from the quick read of this particular case in the article you linked.
LikeLike
Gordon Hawkes
September 23, 2015
I’m glad were agreed. You make a good point regarding the need for an additional right to be recognized, namely, the right to medical care, in order to ensure a right to DOCTOR assisted suicide. I hadn’t thought of that specifically, and I missed that qualification in your original comment. I believe you’re correct.
That said, what do you think of making it legal for people to ask loved ones (or anyone, for that matter) to kill them? For instance, an elderly man desires his wife to help “send him off,” rather than some impersonal doctor he has never met. Is there any good reason in your view, granted laws opening up assisted suicide to all, to deny him his desire to die with the help of his wife?
LikeLike
Gordon Hawkes
September 23, 2015
*Note: I should have said: “…making it legal for people to ask loved ones…to HELP or AID in their suicide?” (Since we’re not discussing euthanasia.)
LikeLike
Lage
September 25, 2015
“That said, what do you think of making it legal for people to ask loved ones (or anyone, for that matter) to kill them? For instance, an elderly man desires his wife to help “send him off,” rather than some impersonal doctor he has never met. Is there any good reason in your view, granted laws opening up assisted suicide to all, to deny him his desire to die with the help of his wife?”
I think that if the person wanting assistance with their suicide is willing to take the risk and have someone other than a medical professional help them with suicide, so be it. However there should be limits on how that person is legally allowed to assist them (nothing that may endanger innocent bystanders for example), and there needs to be a process for determining that this was the true wishes of the individual (so we don’t start seeing huge influxes of murders disguised as “assisted suicides”). For example, we may need the patient as well as a witness(es) to sign some documentation ahead of time, and/or a doctor that has seen the patient co-signing a document with the patient, etc. (similar to a last living will and testament) — even if this means that they need some kind of notary or judge to witness the agreement. If these kinds of things are taken into consideration (some formality to prevent abuse/fraud and to promote/guarantee safety), then it seems reasonable to allow a person to die any way they wish within these bounds.
LikeLike
Anonymous
September 29, 2015
Lage, I think your conclusion–that people should be allowed to have anyone they choose (given certain qualifications and restrictions–e.g., no shooting your friend in the head in public–as you mention) assist in killing them–is the consistent position to take if one grants assisted suicide on the basis of autonomy. If someone were to object on grounds that this “opens up a slippery slope” toward people committing murders and covering them up as voluntary assisted suicides, I would say that they are then open to the same type of slippery slope argument against assisted suicide and euthanasia (which, inevitably, will follow assisted suicide in being made legal) in the first place. There are already far too many examples of doctors and nurses euthanizing patients in the Netherlands and Belgium without the patients’ consent: Here’s just one report of a study done: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285423/Half-Belgiums-euthanasia-nurses-admit-killing-consent.html
LikeLike
Gordon Hawkes
September 29, 2015
Lage, thanks again for your comments.
I think your conclusion–that people should be allowed to have anyone they choose (given certain qualifications and restrictions–e.g., no shooting your friend in the head in public–as you mention) assist in killing them–is the consistent position to take if one grants assisted suicide on the basis of autonomy. If someone were to object on grounds that this “opens up a slippery slope” toward people committing murders and covering them up as voluntary assisted suicides, I would say that they are then open to the same type of slippery slope argument against assisted suicide and euthanasia (which, inevitably, will follow assisted suicide in being made legal) in the first place. For instance, there are already far too many examples of doctors and nurses euthanizing patients in the Netherlands and Belgium without the patients’ consent, despite supposed safeguards and protections for sick and vulnerable patients. Here’s just one report of a study done: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285423/Half-Belgiums-euthanasia-nurses-admit-killing-consent.html
I think, then, if people are squeamish about the risks of legalizing assisted suicide, they shouldn’t advocate it in the first place.
LikeLike
Lage
September 29, 2015
“I think, then, if people are squeamish about the risks of legalizing assisted suicide, they shouldn’t advocate it in the first place.”
And this sort of “argument from squeamishness” or “slippery slope argument” could then be applicable to any other type of freedom that can be abused, thus illustrating that (with no supporting demonstration), to deny a right or privilege based on an ad hoc hypothetical, is nothing more than a logical fallacy. The plain fact is that to deny people assisted suicide (or legally assisted suicide), they are denying others their right to bodily autonomy. This is itself a slippery slope (and a demonstrable one, thus avoiding any fallacy), because once we grant that some actions granted by bodily autonomy should not be granted, then we are sacrificing a universal enforcement and acceptance of this bodily autonomy. One can have a valid argument if they showed that some examples of rights granted interfered with another’s right to bodily autonomy, but that hasn’t been demonstrated yet on those in the opposition of legalizing assisted suicide. They are merely pointing out that the right can be abused (just like any other right, yet we don’t give up our rights because some people abuse them). What if one day we are all forced to donate organs to others that are dying with no choice at all in the matter, thus denying our right to bodily autonomy in such a form? That is a slippery slope indeed, and I think if we are going to try and defend such a right to bodily autonomy, then we must be consistent with it. This means granting legally assisted suicide, legalizing abortion, not forcing people to donate organs, etc. If we only want to grant some of these freedoms/rights, then the conversation has to change to where bodily autonomy isn’t the primary argument, but rather it is something else (even if a utilitarian/consequentialist argument of some kind).
LikeLike
Gordon Hawkes
October 5, 2015
Your comment reminds me of the phrase “abusus non tollit usum.” It means that just because something is abused, that doesn’t mean it should be taken away from those who use it properly. In other words, I read you as saying something along the lines of, “Just because people are going to use assisted suicide as a cover for murder doesn’t constitute a reason to strip others of their rights to bodily autonomy.” Am I accurate in my assessment of your view?
That said, I think the reasonable way to object to assisted suicide is to object first to suicide, or “self-murder,” as it used to be called. I’m planning to put up a post sometime in the next week or so addressing the question of suicide, along with autonomy as a right or a value, specifically as it is used to justify striking down laws based on “traditional” or “common sense” morality (such as prohibitions in the criminal code against assisted suicide and euthanasia).
For instance, in thinking about your comment, it came to me that if autonomy were made an absolute value, how could we have any laws at all? Aren’t all laws a limitation of our autonomy in some way or another? One of my friends often says, citing J. S. Mill, “Your autonomy stops at the end of my nose.” Just once I’d like to reply, “Why? Your nose is getting in the way of my autonomy.”
The logical conclusion of autonomy as an absolute value (not that I am charging you with making it as such) seems to be the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre (see Existentialism Is a Humanism). You choose who you are, you choose your essence, you choose what is right and wrong. You choose what is reality.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
LikeLike
Lage
October 6, 2015
Likewise, thanks for taking the time to discuss such an interesting topic…good stuff indeed!
“In other words, I read you as saying something along the lines of, “Just because people are going to use assisted suicide as a cover for murder doesn’t constitute a reason to strip others of their rights to bodily autonomy.” Am I accurate in my assessment of your view?”
Yes. As long as there are formal procedures for documenting the approval and plan of assisted suicide (to help prevent murder coverups) then there shouldn’t be a problem with people abusing legally assisted suicide to cover up a murder at least. In general, we shouldn’t deny people rights or privileges just because a few may abuse them. If only a minority abuses them, then it is no different than most any of the other laws we have in place already.
“That said, I think the reasonable way to object to assisted suicide is to object first to suicide, or “self-murder,” as it used to be called.”
I agree. If one rejected suicide, then a fortiori, one would have to reject assisted suicide as well. However, one would need a valid argument against suicide first. I haven’t seen any yet, let alone one that would stand up to an argument for bodily autonomy.
“For instance, in thinking about your comment, it came to me that if autonomy were made an absolute value, how could we have any laws at all? Aren’t all laws a limitation of our autonomy in some way or another?”
Which is why one typical stipulation for rights to bodily autonomy is that they don’t interfere or prevent others from exercising their bodily autonomy (at the very least with regard to the same issue at hand). The most common way that a right to bodily autonomy is described is: “Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.”
Taken this way, it doesn’t mean that a person has a right to do whatever they want, whenever they want with their body (that would be anarchy of course). Rather, it means that they can treat their body as their own property (in a libertarian sense) even if this includes the decision to destroy their body (or have another willing person do it for them) — and they can do so as long as they don’t destroy another’s body, another’s property, etc. Analogous to owning a car, this doesn’t mean that a car owner would have the right to drive their car over another person or into another’s house. It does mean that they have the right to destroy that car however in some benign way that won’t directly harm bystanders (e.g. no blowing up your car if it may harm a passerby but I can dismantle it, scrap it in a junkyard, etc.). I can even pay another person to destroy my car for me (much like assisted suicide). So I think that an argument for bodily autonomy should be considered within the context of property ownership in general. I should have the right to destroy my own property (including my own body), so long as it doesn’t directly harm others.
“The logical conclusion of autonomy as an absolute value (not that I am charging you with making it as such) seems to be the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre (see Existentialism Is a Humanism). You choose who you are, you choose your essence, you choose what is right and wrong. You choose what is reality.”
See my previous comment about how I think we should be considering a right to bodily autonomy (i.e. the body as our own property), as I don’t believe it is absolute (nor anything else for that matter other than perhaps the logical absolutes, epistemically speaking). I don’t believe in any “absolute” values or morals, as any values may be subject to change given particular circumstances, goals, etc. I know that you weren’t charging me with holding to absolute values, but I thought I’d make my position clear regardless. I do believe in objective morals and values, but not in any absolute sense (since these objective morals can change if they are situation dependent or dependent on our cognitive machinery which evolves over time). I do however personally hold that the right to bodily autonomy as entirely reasonable and think it is important to uphold for individuals.
Though I see your point regarding how an absolute bodily autonomy could be seen as in line with Sartre’s existentialism, I don’t think it is necessary to adopt Sartre’s philosophy in order to uphold bodily autonomy (as per the libertarian argument given previously about our autonomy being synonymous with property ownership and nothing more). I also disagree with many aspects of Sartre’s existentialism (not that you were necessary endorsing it). While it is true that we may define ourselves any way we like, we don’t ultimately choose any of these things; not our essence, not who we are, nor what is right and wrong. Neither do we choose what is reality ultimately (even if we may come upon a subjective ontology). All of these things are deterministically, well, determined and/or based on random factors out of our control (despite Sartre’s objection to these “deterministic excuses”). While it is true that through an illusion of free will (since we aren’t conscious of the entire causal chain leading to our decisions/actions), we are responsible for our actions in the sense that “computers” that execute behaviors given some input and given their programming and hardware are responsible for those outputs. However, we can’t ultimately change our “output algorithm” (actions) given some initial conditions, other than through happenstance reprogramming after the fact (by incidentally learning something new that appeals to our current rationality, emotions, values, etc., which subsequently reprograms a new/modified output algorithm). Who we are is based on our upbringing/conditioning environment (programming) as well as our genes (hardware). Likewise, what we think of as right and wrong are based on our goals, and when it comes down to it, our ultimate goal which motivates all others is arguably satisfaction / fulfillment / happiness / eudamonia (as Aristotle rightly argued more than 2000 years ago, IMO). If a person is rational and has all the facts, then this ultimate goal will lead to objective moral imperatives, and thus what is right and wrong is ultimately determined by a fundamental goal that is out of our control as well (we can’t decide what makes us happy, even if what makes us happy changes over time as we gain new information). We may think that something is right and wrong even if that determination isn’t based on correct facts (which would make that determination unjustified if not false), but our moral judgments are only valid if they are based on facts and rationality given our ultimate goal of satisfaction and fulfillment in life, thus we don’t choose what is right and wrong either (even if we think we do). I know you probably weren’t trying to delve deep into criticism of existentialism, so I’ll end it there.
It’s been an interesting conversation and I always like to see where these topics go. Tangents can be exciting, and they are often inevitable as the conceptual basis for any argument or topic is so deeply rooted in so many others.
LikeLike
goldfrost91
November 9, 2015
I think it depends on the quality of life expectancy and mental health status. What kind of life are you taking? If someone is in great physical suffering, their quality of life would be very low. If a healthy individual took his own life, it is indicative of a mental health illness (this is a blanket statement, I’m sure there are exceptions) that can potentially be managed. If he took his own life he has the possibility of taking something that can be great. I think there is a difference between depression resulting from physical illness and depression (or other diagnoses) independent of any physical ailment. The possibility of a quality life is the difference.
LikeLike
Gordon Hawkes
November 9, 2015
Hi goldfrost91. I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the true reason (though usually implicit) that is being used to justify assisted suicide. You present “quality of life” as the factor that determines whether one can rightly kill themselves, or be assisted in killing themselves. And this reason, I think–NOT personal autonomy–is the reason that is truly behind the justification of assisted suicide.
Now, you may disagree with the following point, but it seems to me that making “quality of life” the determining factor of who can and can’t be killed introduces a sliding scale of VALUE to human life, because “quality of life” is a degreed property, like height or intelligence. Those with the highest degree of “quality of life” (however we define that) are the most valuable and can’t be killed (even if they desire that they be killed), and those with the lowest degree of “quality of life” can be killed (with their permission, we are assuming). The equal value of all human lives becomes a rhetorical fiction. Please note that I am not implying that you are saying this, or agree with this. But, I do think that this is an implication of the “quality of life” justification for assisted suicide and euthanasia.
I’m curious what you think of this apparent implication–whether it would be a problem for you, or whether you think that a degreed property like “quality of life” could be the factor that determines who can be killed, while still maintaining that all human lives have equal value.
Thanks for you comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
goldfrost91
November 9, 2015
You make a really good point. I definitely see the issue with assigning quality of life as the determining factor for who should be permitted to end their own life. I certainly do not wish to imply that but I see your reasoning. I work with individuals with developmental disabilities and many of my clients are effected both physically and mentally. The goals of each individual’s service agreement differ in many ways but one main theme throughout is providing the individual with as many opportunities to make their own choices as possible. I suppose what I was trying to state was that when evaluating wether someone should be permitted to access assisted suicide services or not, it is possible that physical well being could help determine if they are suffering from a mental health diagnoses that could be managed, thus improving their personal quality of life. It does get tricky; I have a client who suffers from a dual diagnosis of William’s Syndrome and Depression. It is somewhat of a a vicious cycle because medical issues linked to her William’s Syndrome (cyclic vomiting, constant nausea, persistent migraines) cause her to be very depressed and demonstrate suicidal ideation. I understand that adding a developmental disability into the mix brings up another slew of moral implications, this case just demonstrates the quality of life issue you are talking about. Anyways, long story short, I was trying to think of a way to separate those with mental health diagnoses that (may or may not) improve versus those with chronic illness but I completely agree with the issues you pointed out. Let me know what you think of the above jibberish.
LikeLike
Gordon Hawkes
November 10, 2015
Hi goldfrost91. Your response was not jibberish. You have a close-up view of people who suffer in ways that many of us will never experience, and, because of that, you’re probably the most informed person in that respect here. Good on you for the work you do. (I suspect you also see a dignity in the people that you work with that others might be inclined to dismiss.) Where I agree strongly with advocates of assisted suicide is that we ought to show compassion to those who are suffering. We philosopher types can often talk about moral issues and the people involved as if we are moving chess pieces around a board, rather than as if we are discussing people with very real pain, very real hopes, and very real fears.
We might ask, then, “How do we best show compassion?” Doing what we can to comfort and lessen people’s pain (physical and mental), and supporting suffering or disabled people in their pursuits (for instance, providing them “as many opportunities to make their own choices as possible”, as you say) is showing compassion. That shouldn’t be controversial. But is killing someone who is suffering an act of compassion?
For me, killing someone to end their pain, even if they are terminally ill, or in great suffering, implies that their life (whatever is left of it), is not as valuable as the lives of those people who have a good “quality of life”. This means that wherever you draw that line between the killable and the not-killable, that line can shift depending on what we decide constitutes enough “quality of life” to be not-killable.
Your attempt, then, to try to separate those with mental health diagnoses, but physical health (that we wouldn’t want to encourage to die) and those with, say, extreme physical suffering (that we might want to assist in killing)–while admirable in the sense that you don’t want to encourage every suicidal person to off themselves, or get help doing it–amounts to trying to draw a line where there is no longer any clear conditions for drawing a line. Once we allow for killing those with low quality of life (the cut off used to be that you can’t kill people, period), what objection can we raise to allowing the mentally and physically disabled to receive assistance in killing themselves if we deem their “quality of life” low enough?
In support of this last point, you can look at the progress of “right to die” legislation in Belgium and the Netherlands as illustrative of the ever shifting line, always in a more permissive direction. Belgium, for instance, now allows for children to be euthanized (with parents permission, of course), and just granted permission to a 24 year old woman, otherwise physically healthy, but with a desire to die, to be euthanized, as well. Doctors in the Netherlands kill infants with physical disabilities (not abort, but kill after birth). Essentially, they kill people like your clients at a very early stage, to prevent a “life not worthy of life”. If you’d like links, I’d be happy to provide you with them.
In summary, my response is to say that the best way to affirm the dignity and worth of people like your clients is to say that their life is equally valuable to yours or mine, and for that reason there is no “cut off line” between killable and not-killable. All humans should be equally protected. In other words, it is allowing assisted suicide in the first place that creates the intractable problem of where to draw the line.
(Again, I’m not implying anywhere in the above that you would advocate for the killing of one group or another. Your response strikes as one motivated by compassion for people.)
LikeLike