This is an interesting and rhetorically powerful argument, but I disagree with it for multiple reasons.
First, the author objects to a "government-run death apparatus" without seeing how one might say the same of his argument, namely, the status quo is a "government-run pain-permitting apparatus". That's pretty barbaric if you ask me. But we can leave that aside for now because the author will likely not agree on this point.
Second, having an extra option available to you does not make it impossible to take those other options (palliative care or a painful (more 'human' death?). I understand the thrust of the author's worry though. They think having this option available will lead to a coarsening of our moral senses, lead to a general indifference toward human life and perhaps lead some people to be pressured into assisted suicide so that they are no longer burdensome. These are valid concerns, but they are not unique objections to assisted suicide -- they are worries about badly designed policy without adequate safeguard. Perhaps the author thinks no amount of safeguards could prevent these bad things from happening, but that is an empirical question and no amount of rhetoric will change that. Absent a good reason to believe that having an extra option will NECESSARILY tip the scales toward all the bad thing the author points out, it's hard to see why we should agree with them.
Third, the author should consider the deeply paternalistic nature of what they're saying. The idea that grievous suffering is something worth bearing, individually or on a societal-level, is something reasonable people can disagree about. In the face of that disagreement, we can ask how ought we to accommodate reasonably disagreeing others? Clearly, banning assisted suicide imposes a set of values on others that they could reasonably reject. They are being FORCED to do something here. But there's a crucial asymmetry. Simply having the option does not impose values on others at all because no one is FORCED to take this option. The author’s real problem should be with being FORCED into this option rather than having it all together.
Once the power to kill people is granted to the medical machine, and to the government without due process, it will swiftly become mandatory. Insurance will not cover extended palliative and hospice care and families will be compelled to kill their grandparents and parents to avoid financial ruin.
The idea that this process will remain entirely voluntary, especially where most people approaching death are not lucid and capable of making decisions, is obviously wrong. We will all be on a conveyer belt to the lethal injection or other murder weapon with no options and no exit, based on bureaucratic rules driven by finances.
Killing people because they are inconvenient is the ultimate barbarism. And we are likely to be seeing lots of barbarism in the years ahead, because it will be mean lots of money to the people who run the machine.
Prediction: Within fifteen years it will be unlawful to keep anyone alive if they have certain defined medical conditions, killing them will be mandatory because of the risk that they will impose undue financial costs on the machine.
There's a risk that this will become eugenics without even the moral responsibility of a Nazi caste--as some form of consent will be "given" beforehand, the practitioner can eliminate the petitioner with a clean conscience.
Classes of people whose lives are deemed of low value by those with power and influence will be killed off.
Imagine emergency rooms where care is denied because the cost of trying to revive and rehabilitate a "low value" person is deemed unjustified by government and insurance company guidelines. Can there be ANY doubt that will happen? The whole push for euthanasia is cash driven, with a veneer of personal autonomy as the motivator.
That doesn't even have to happen for euthanasia to have chilling effects on healthcare access-- rumors that the "doctor will kill you" could be enough to discourage someone from treatment. And there have been cases where physically healthy enough people have applied because they can't access or are losing benefits. They're not dying of terminal cancer, if they were able to access a safe indoor living space they'd prefer to live, but...
Why is there so much angst about giving humans full control over their life? Don't like euthanasia, don't use it. Just like abortion. Against it? Don't, but none of your business if I want to. Same with Euthanasia. Sure, it can be abused, like everything, but why deny people who want a peaceful exit, for whatever reason? My body, is not your business
It makes some intuitive sense, but are there any known instances of assisted suicide policy 'actually' deadening a society's moral sense? If so, then it would be dreadful policy. Applying a large part of the national wealth to creating weapons for killing people... an army, is also insane and likely to deaden moral senses. Until one considers the probable human cost of not doing so. There lies the rub... and the obstacle to simple answers.
The first thought I have, reading this, is why is the government involved at all? Governments have institutionalized our entire lives.
It has been possible for many years to keep a brain-dead body alive indefinitely. Decisions must be made about 'pulling the plug'. The less government has to do with it, the more I like it.
Yes, we all die. And with modern healthcare, we often don't die until our bodies are essentially dysfunctional. And sometimes in great pain. Assisted death has to be an option. But there is no reason to add it to the long list of cradle to grave nanny state interventions into our lives.
Having been by the bedside of suffering loved one suffering from painful cancer, begging for the end, we were grateful to live in a State that allows the individual to choose when to let go. It is NOT ASSISTED! The person must be able to drink the medicine themselves, without help. And that is after several conversations sustains with their doctor and social worker and counselor. When a patient is SCREAMING for relief, you may think differently.
The concluding statement tells us all we need to know. Earlier the author stated, “assisted suicide encourages spiritual suicide,” which should have been the clue to his conclusion––it’s about a belief in the “spiritual,” not in individual human rights. In fact, he also claimed that it “de-individualizes us.” Therein, lies the core argument he should have pursued: Individual rights. Instead, the debate here is not about individual human rights, it’s about the same old religious argument versus “technocratic capitalism”––a false premise that contends there is some amorphous, universal, spiritual power (e.g., God, Allah, Zeus, et al), whose ubiquitous control over each and every individual is more important than our individual right to control the one and only human life we possess in our journey to get through a period of existence that is common to all of us. As Schopenhauer might say, it is our singular existence, no one else’s (not even the “spirit’s”), and we have the right to decide how we live it––and end it. The author has conjured up an erroneous debate, it’s not about “liberal-mindedness" and "technology" and "anti-human will," it’s about individual human rights––try again!
I wrote about this recently. I took the other side. It matters not how much you whine about the "immorality" of dispensing with the terminally ill; we still live in a world where costs exist, and tough choices must be made. The utopian socialist fantasy of providing perfect care to everybody is just that —a fantasy.
There is an alternative to the clinical, government-run death apparatus--it's called freedom. (The self-righteous ignoramuses call this "capitalism.") However, under freedom, there is no obligation of care. Whatever you want, the onus is on you to pay for it.
This is an interesting and rhetorically powerful argument, but I disagree with it for multiple reasons.
First, the author objects to a "government-run death apparatus" without seeing how one might say the same of his argument, namely, the status quo is a "government-run pain-permitting apparatus". That's pretty barbaric if you ask me. But we can leave that aside for now because the author will likely not agree on this point.
Second, having an extra option available to you does not make it impossible to take those other options (palliative care or a painful (more 'human' death?). I understand the thrust of the author's worry though. They think having this option available will lead to a coarsening of our moral senses, lead to a general indifference toward human life and perhaps lead some people to be pressured into assisted suicide so that they are no longer burdensome. These are valid concerns, but they are not unique objections to assisted suicide -- they are worries about badly designed policy without adequate safeguard. Perhaps the author thinks no amount of safeguards could prevent these bad things from happening, but that is an empirical question and no amount of rhetoric will change that. Absent a good reason to believe that having an extra option will NECESSARILY tip the scales toward all the bad thing the author points out, it's hard to see why we should agree with them.
Third, the author should consider the deeply paternalistic nature of what they're saying. The idea that grievous suffering is something worth bearing, individually or on a societal-level, is something reasonable people can disagree about. In the face of that disagreement, we can ask how ought we to accommodate reasonably disagreeing others? Clearly, banning assisted suicide imposes a set of values on others that they could reasonably reject. They are being FORCED to do something here. But there's a crucial asymmetry. Simply having the option does not impose values on others at all because no one is FORCED to take this option. The author’s real problem should be with being FORCED into this option rather than having it all together.
Once the power to kill people is granted to the medical machine, and to the government without due process, it will swiftly become mandatory. Insurance will not cover extended palliative and hospice care and families will be compelled to kill their grandparents and parents to avoid financial ruin.
The idea that this process will remain entirely voluntary, especially where most people approaching death are not lucid and capable of making decisions, is obviously wrong. We will all be on a conveyer belt to the lethal injection or other murder weapon with no options and no exit, based on bureaucratic rules driven by finances.
Killing people because they are inconvenient is the ultimate barbarism. And we are likely to be seeing lots of barbarism in the years ahead, because it will be mean lots of money to the people who run the machine.
Prediction: Within fifteen years it will be unlawful to keep anyone alive if they have certain defined medical conditions, killing them will be mandatory because of the risk that they will impose undue financial costs on the machine.
There's a risk that this will become eugenics without even the moral responsibility of a Nazi caste--as some form of consent will be "given" beforehand, the practitioner can eliminate the petitioner with a clean conscience.
Classes of people whose lives are deemed of low value by those with power and influence will be killed off.
Imagine emergency rooms where care is denied because the cost of trying to revive and rehabilitate a "low value" person is deemed unjustified by government and insurance company guidelines. Can there be ANY doubt that will happen? The whole push for euthanasia is cash driven, with a veneer of personal autonomy as the motivator.
That doesn't even have to happen for euthanasia to have chilling effects on healthcare access-- rumors that the "doctor will kill you" could be enough to discourage someone from treatment. And there have been cases where physically healthy enough people have applied because they can't access or are losing benefits. They're not dying of terminal cancer, if they were able to access a safe indoor living space they'd prefer to live, but...
Agreed. And not just a rumor, the reality. People are justifiably afraid of being at the mercy of a system that can legally kill them.
Also, people who are having a hard time may feel social and family pressure to be euthanized rather than be a source of trouble and expense.
Nothing good will come of this. Palliative care for the dying is already a specialty. Nothing can entirely eliminate pain while dying.
The last generation of people permitted to die a natural death and not be killed the government and insurance companies are the ones dying right now.
Why is there so much angst about giving humans full control over their life? Don't like euthanasia, don't use it. Just like abortion. Against it? Don't, but none of your business if I want to. Same with Euthanasia. Sure, it can be abused, like everything, but why deny people who want a peaceful exit, for whatever reason? My body, is not your business
did you read the essay
It makes some intuitive sense, but are there any known instances of assisted suicide policy 'actually' deadening a society's moral sense? If so, then it would be dreadful policy. Applying a large part of the national wealth to creating weapons for killing people... an army, is also insane and likely to deaden moral senses. Until one considers the probable human cost of not doing so. There lies the rub... and the obstacle to simple answers.
I guess I agree and disagree.
The first thought I have, reading this, is why is the government involved at all? Governments have institutionalized our entire lives.
It has been possible for many years to keep a brain-dead body alive indefinitely. Decisions must be made about 'pulling the plug'. The less government has to do with it, the more I like it.
Yes, we all die. And with modern healthcare, we often don't die until our bodies are essentially dysfunctional. And sometimes in great pain. Assisted death has to be an option. But there is no reason to add it to the long list of cradle to grave nanny state interventions into our lives.
Having been by the bedside of suffering loved one suffering from painful cancer, begging for the end, we were grateful to live in a State that allows the individual to choose when to let go. It is NOT ASSISTED! The person must be able to drink the medicine themselves, without help. And that is after several conversations sustains with their doctor and social worker and counselor. When a patient is SCREAMING for relief, you may think differently.
The concluding statement tells us all we need to know. Earlier the author stated, “assisted suicide encourages spiritual suicide,” which should have been the clue to his conclusion––it’s about a belief in the “spiritual,” not in individual human rights. In fact, he also claimed that it “de-individualizes us.” Therein, lies the core argument he should have pursued: Individual rights. Instead, the debate here is not about individual human rights, it’s about the same old religious argument versus “technocratic capitalism”––a false premise that contends there is some amorphous, universal, spiritual power (e.g., God, Allah, Zeus, et al), whose ubiquitous control over each and every individual is more important than our individual right to control the one and only human life we possess in our journey to get through a period of existence that is common to all of us. As Schopenhauer might say, it is our singular existence, no one else’s (not even the “spirit’s”), and we have the right to decide how we live it––and end it. The author has conjured up an erroneous debate, it’s not about “liberal-mindedness" and "technology" and "anti-human will," it’s about individual human rights––try again!
I wrote about this recently. I took the other side. It matters not how much you whine about the "immorality" of dispensing with the terminally ill; we still live in a world where costs exist, and tough choices must be made. The utopian socialist fantasy of providing perfect care to everybody is just that —a fantasy.
There is an alternative to the clinical, government-run death apparatus--it's called freedom. (The self-righteous ignoramuses call this "capitalism.") However, under freedom, there is no obligation of care. Whatever you want, the onus is on you to pay for it.
https://jinandiarist.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-maid
This dude ever see some die “naturally”? Often real painful and sucks real bad. Pray for legalized euthanasia the alternative is often horrid.
Great article. When will Seamless provide a "last meal" package with the mobile euthanasia service?