This question appeared in Great Debates 15 years ago, but I think attitudes may have changed over the years. Should Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) be legal throughout the US? Only 20% of states now allow it.
0 voters
Yes, it should. So there are critical details which need to be sorted out. They will be, just as they have on a million other thorny issues.
First person to mention “morality” gets a flaming bag of dog poop left on their doorstep.
Doesn’t something like this belong in Great Debates?
Mod: It can stay here if the OP wants it to be less confrontational than the norm for GD.
It’s the wrong question. As with abortion, the other bugaboo of social conservatives, the question is not “should it be legal?”, the question should be "should it be illegal, and if so, what are the good reasons for such a law? Asking whether it should be “legal” is a loaded question that carries the implication that society should endorse it. The real question is whether society has moral grounds for prohibiting it, or whether, instead, the awesome majesty of the law should stay silent on the matter.
In both of those examples (physician-assisted suicide and abortion) we are dealing with a very sad, tragic situation in which an individual chooses the least bad option, often the only humane option, and should have every moral right to do so.
Absolutely yes.
It is an obscene moral failing to extend the option of a humane death to animals whilst denying it to humans,
I’m actually surprised to learn that 10 states (& DC) allow it. As a matter of interest, they are:
California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
I’m equally surprised to discover that it has 72% public support in the U.S.
Why does that surprise you? Allowing someone to die with dignity if they want to seems like a reasonable thing if someone has a terminal illness that will lead to a slow death over some number of months. You’re entitled to be surprised.
I’m not interested in confronting anybody. I’m just interested in how people feel about it these days.
Given the level of religiosity in the U.S., with moral reasoning on abortion distorted by the superstition that a few cells are sacrosanct because they are magically imbued with a soul, I’m astonished to discover that public support for enlightened policy on assisted suicide is so high.
The difference may be that with PAS the terminally ill person is making the choice to live or die versus an abortion where the fetus is not able to choose.
The fetus has no opinion one way or the other. If you disagree, try to solicit an opinion from it. Besides that, you’re completely off topic.
The question I ask myself when approaching the issue is “Does the state have an interest in keeping alive anyone who does not want to be alive?”
In some cases, if a person is physically healthy, and suffering from psychiatric, or psychological problems, and has minor children, then yes, the state actually does.
But just saying “No suicide for you,” isn’t going to solve the person’s issues, and what it might take to solve them, or at least ameliorate them-- in dollars, because we are talking about the state’s interest-- might be more than what it would take to support the person’s minor child(ren) through age 18-- or even additionally put them through college.
I think it’s legitimate to allow the state to work out the numbers before repealing existing laws.
I also think that when a potential doctor-assisted suicide isn’t terminal and in physical pain, a doctor should have a third choice in addition to a simple “No” or “Yes,” and that is some kind of referral program that would assist the person in improving their quality of life.
I realize that you’d think someone thinking suicide has already probably been through all the out-patient and in-patient and other programs that might apply, but that’s not always the case. I personally know a half dozen people I could name (though I won’t) who suffered in silence for a long time, without seeking any kind of help, and in four cases, actually attempted suicide; in one case, walked into a doctor’s office asking if they were eligible for assistance; and in the last, just totally lost it, were stopped in the middle of some kind of a breakdown/psychotic break, and were in possession of three different pretty good means of suicide, albeit, claimed to have no definite plan-- but weren’t necessarily making a lot of sense. And this person had never shown any sign of being anything but completely competent, and absolutely in control and “together,” and reasonably happy, right up to the day before this happened.
So, I voted yeah, it should be legal everywhere, and in that I think the state has no moral interest, for the most part, it’s a decision between a patient and a doctor-- but I think the doctor should have as much input as the patient. A patient should not be able to demand it anymore than a patient can demand penicillin or an appendectomy. And a doctor should have lots of support, and choices in making a decision: Yes; No; let me refer you to a 1) program where you can consider you options; 2) let me refer you to a specialist who can handle your case better than I. And maybe things I have not thought of.
This isn’t really comparable to an abortion, even though it’s tempting, mainly because it’s not time-sensitive, so asking the person to consider the decision is not out of line. Especially since it does, in fact, effect other people in most cases.
On the other hand, killing people instead of treating a potentially treatable ailment, or exerting pressure, even if subtle, to have people opt for death rather treatment or accommodating the disabled, has actually happened in the past. I do fear the slippery slope here because societies have slid down it before.
Based on actions rather than words, a lot of the people hyperventilating about a ball of cells barely old enough to be called a fetus don’t actually give a damn about that human life once it’s born and out in the world. I find very few of them holding life outside the womb as sacred as that inside so I would be not at all surprised to find a rabid anti-abortion person who also supports PAS.
People already opt for death in unsafe ways, feeling all of those pressures and with no option of release that doesn’t leave them implicating others in guilt, or traumatising those they leave behind.
I agree with what Terry Pratchett said.
I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice.
I’d highly recommend anyone interested in this subject to read his lecture.
I’m talking about people do NOT consent to PAS. I talking about people do NOT want to be killed who are pressured to do this by other people, either via subtle or not so subtle means. I’m talking about people who are not presented with all their options before being offered PAS, or who are not permitted to access all their options because someone else has decided “cost effectiveness” or saving money is more important. I’m not talking about someone frail and elderly not wanting to be a “burden” to their family, I’m talking about their family or someone else making that decision then trying to “encourage” the person towards PAS.
This doesn’t seem to be happening at this point (except for rare outliers like Dr. Kevorkian who was, I felt, rightly convicted and jailed for his actions). I do very much worry about it happening in the future. The fact that every few years there is a court case of a nurse or doctor killing off patients shows that there is a real risk to be guarded against.
The only interest the state has is in ensuring that society maintains an enlightened code of morality, informed by science, rationality, and justice. No more, no less.
The example of someone who is physically healthy who wishes assisted suicide because they are depressed is an irrelevant straw man. Such a person is not mentally competent to make such a decision and no ethical physician would ever participate in such an activity.
It therefore comes back to my original question: is there any reason that assisted suicide, in medically justifiable circumstances, should be illegal? I can’t think of any. At least, none that aren’t ultimately rooted in religious fanaticism. I think the analogy with opposition to abortion is apt.
I think you make a number of thoughtful points, but I strongly disagree with this one. “Numbers” should never be a factor in moral decisions.
All of which can be addressed by various degrees of safeguarding.
Given the historical precedent and its direct impact on my own family history I am and probably will continue to be extremely skeptical of society’s ability to imposed robust safeguards and on-going commitment to keeping them in place and strong.