I'm surprised, given what you usually write, at the incredibly shallow treatment of this topic you have provided. Assisted suicide is not about killing old people because they have a sad life. It's about people with serious disease, or living in extreme chronic pain, for example, choosing to end their suffering. Be better.
That is not the argument I am responding to. The article is question makes the claims I argue against. It is a significant part of the assisted suicide movement.
we can't ask to be a slave because slavery is worse than death, right? so why can't we be asked to be put to death if we are in an irreversible worse-than-death state?
I think you make the world a little worse by insisting that Mill’s views should or should not be cited in support of assisted suicide. The important issue is that every human being is entitled to decide whether to live or die under a given set of circumstances. Your opinion is only relevant as to your own existence.
In all countries with euthanasia laws, NONE used 'individual sovereignty as a pat argument for assisted suicide', and none cited Mill in political and community debates about the issue. None allow individual sovereignty, either. People have to seek and obtain permission and approval. Euthanasia doesn't mean people can willy nilly ask for lethal drugs.
Most people don't live long enough to end up in an elderly care facility. Of those who do live long enough, most can't afford the luxury of a care home.
Merely being old isn't a criteria for accessing euthanasia in any country.
People of any age can die. Death isn't confined to the old.
Dying with dignity is legal in numerous countries because the communities collectively and individually exercised their higher minds.
I don’t know too much about all the countries in which euthanasia is legal, but I know a little bit about Canada and it is true that there “patient autonomy” (which to me sounds like “individual sovereignty” in more modern language) is the fundamental guiding principle that their legislation is based on. This is why Canada has been allowing so many more categories of patients to legally access MAID—at some point, if “we are allowing the patient to act in accordance with their own wishes” is the basis for your policy, it starts to seem logically incoherent to say that some types of patients deserve the ability to exercise their autonomy in this regard but others don’t. That’s the basis for Canada’s extension of MAID eligibility to people who only suffer from a mental illness, which has not technically been rolled out yet (they keep delaying it). It’s also why they have considered allowing MAID for mature minors. Also, I don’t think it’s quite true that people can “Willy nilly ask for lethal drugs,” but what I’ve read about what’s happening in Canada is pretty disturbing and honestly not too far off from that. Some youngish people have been able to access euthanasia because they didn’t want to deal with the treatment for their highly treatable condition or because it was easier to access euthanasia than acceptable housing conditions. As of last year, MAID accounted for 5% of all deaths in Canada. Henry Oliver is absolutely right to point out that there’s a lot that can be done that will reduce the number of people who want to seek MAID in the first place, although I think his argument would have been made stronger by going a little more into depth and addressing broader issues like access to palliative care for people with certain medical conditions rather than focusing on the nursing home example (not that I would ever presume to criticize). Ultimately though, it does seem like this tunnel vision for patient autonomy is just as reductive as focusing only on Mill’s harm principle is. It pretty clearly negates one of the most important things about humans—that we care for each other and want to make each other’s lives better. We should want to see if we can do things to improve the lives of those who seek out MAID (and we definitely can in both Canada and the US) and be exceptionally careful that we don’t write policies that functionally encourage suicide as an option, which is what Canada has done. (Very convenient considering how much less expensive it is to euthanize people than to adequately improve social safety nets and provide sufficient medical care to people with debilitating medical conditions.)
It’s way harder to try to act on this impulse to care in real life than to throw your hands up and say “autonomous adults should be able to do whatever they want” because it isn’t always easy to know when it’s best to intervene vs not, but it also seems profoundly wrong to short circuit debate by saying that “people should have the option to die with dignity, end of story” rather than considering the entire picture of access to treatment, social services, and options that don’t require a person to be euthanized. There are some interesting comparative studies between Canada and California regarding MAID (because they introduced it in the same year, have similar sized populations, and have wildly different proportions of people who die via MAID) and the Atlantic just ran an article called “Canada Is Killing Itself” that details the medical landscape created by its euthanasia policies, including explaining the stories of some people who probably shouldn’t have had access to MAID.
Anyways, sorry for hijacking your comment with a vaguely related rant but you got me thinking!
Certainly, Canada has expanded eligibility to people with chronic health conditions that will not cause their death and is genuinely looking at adding mental illness (people not presently of sound mind?!) as a sole factor. This seems to expand death with dignity to something more akin to life with dignity. It's a disturbing bar when a country moves into that territory.
Deficiencies in social and medical support are the areas to be addressed and expanded, rather than broadening euthanasia.
Mental health has numerous new treatment options. They should be made available to people who need them.
People suffering from chronic pain should have appropriate pain relief, even if that means they're on medication for the rest of their lives. More research is also needed. Pain isn't a priority. People are supposed to just deal with it.
Quality palliative care should be improved and be easily and widely accessible.
Even so, palliative care and end-of-life care are still going to be inadequate for many people, who prefer quality of life over quantity.
In Canada, like elsewhere, the individual needs sign off by two clinicians, and another clinician to do the prescribing. To me, that's not patient autonomy - the patient is reliant on three independent people to agree with their wishes.
Applications do get rejected, often resulting in suicides, or approval comes too late for a peaceful death.
No person blithely applies to the state to help them end their life when they are terminally ill. . Deep and long thought goes into making that decision. A lot of suffering and diminishment of life has already occurred.
The movable bar for eligibility in Canada is, I agree, morally concerning.
Important piece. Glad you wrote it.
Thanks!
It isn't about avoiding retirement homes. It's about not ending your life in appalling pain while your body gives out.
Not according to the article I was responding to
Excellently argued. I have rather been wondering at what point the Common Reader would turn to politics, or at least the issues of the day.
Thanks! There won’t be lots of politics but there will be more “ideas”
JSM wouldn't like how things are now, except that we don't subjugate women the way he complained about in print then.
I'm surprised, given what you usually write, at the incredibly shallow treatment of this topic you have provided. Assisted suicide is not about killing old people because they have a sad life. It's about people with serious disease, or living in extreme chronic pain, for example, choosing to end their suffering. Be better.
That is not the argument I am responding to. The article is question makes the claims I argue against. It is a significant part of the assisted suicide movement.
"Significant"? Based on what evidence. I think you do a disservice to an important option that people should have the right to choose.
we can't ask to be a slave because slavery is worse than death, right? so why can't we be asked to be put to death if we are in an irreversible worse-than-death state?
I think you make the world a little worse by insisting that Mill’s views should or should not be cited in support of assisted suicide. The important issue is that every human being is entitled to decide whether to live or die under a given set of circumstances. Your opinion is only relevant as to your own existence.
In all countries with euthanasia laws, NONE used 'individual sovereignty as a pat argument for assisted suicide', and none cited Mill in political and community debates about the issue. None allow individual sovereignty, either. People have to seek and obtain permission and approval. Euthanasia doesn't mean people can willy nilly ask for lethal drugs.
Most people don't live long enough to end up in an elderly care facility. Of those who do live long enough, most can't afford the luxury of a care home.
Merely being old isn't a criteria for accessing euthanasia in any country.
People of any age can die. Death isn't confined to the old.
Dying with dignity is legal in numerous countries because the communities collectively and individually exercised their higher minds.
I don’t know too much about all the countries in which euthanasia is legal, but I know a little bit about Canada and it is true that there “patient autonomy” (which to me sounds like “individual sovereignty” in more modern language) is the fundamental guiding principle that their legislation is based on. This is why Canada has been allowing so many more categories of patients to legally access MAID—at some point, if “we are allowing the patient to act in accordance with their own wishes” is the basis for your policy, it starts to seem logically incoherent to say that some types of patients deserve the ability to exercise their autonomy in this regard but others don’t. That’s the basis for Canada’s extension of MAID eligibility to people who only suffer from a mental illness, which has not technically been rolled out yet (they keep delaying it). It’s also why they have considered allowing MAID for mature minors. Also, I don’t think it’s quite true that people can “Willy nilly ask for lethal drugs,” but what I’ve read about what’s happening in Canada is pretty disturbing and honestly not too far off from that. Some youngish people have been able to access euthanasia because they didn’t want to deal with the treatment for their highly treatable condition or because it was easier to access euthanasia than acceptable housing conditions. As of last year, MAID accounted for 5% of all deaths in Canada. Henry Oliver is absolutely right to point out that there’s a lot that can be done that will reduce the number of people who want to seek MAID in the first place, although I think his argument would have been made stronger by going a little more into depth and addressing broader issues like access to palliative care for people with certain medical conditions rather than focusing on the nursing home example (not that I would ever presume to criticize). Ultimately though, it does seem like this tunnel vision for patient autonomy is just as reductive as focusing only on Mill’s harm principle is. It pretty clearly negates one of the most important things about humans—that we care for each other and want to make each other’s lives better. We should want to see if we can do things to improve the lives of those who seek out MAID (and we definitely can in both Canada and the US) and be exceptionally careful that we don’t write policies that functionally encourage suicide as an option, which is what Canada has done. (Very convenient considering how much less expensive it is to euthanize people than to adequately improve social safety nets and provide sufficient medical care to people with debilitating medical conditions.)
It’s way harder to try to act on this impulse to care in real life than to throw your hands up and say “autonomous adults should be able to do whatever they want” because it isn’t always easy to know when it’s best to intervene vs not, but it also seems profoundly wrong to short circuit debate by saying that “people should have the option to die with dignity, end of story” rather than considering the entire picture of access to treatment, social services, and options that don’t require a person to be euthanized. There are some interesting comparative studies between Canada and California regarding MAID (because they introduced it in the same year, have similar sized populations, and have wildly different proportions of people who die via MAID) and the Atlantic just ran an article called “Canada Is Killing Itself” that details the medical landscape created by its euthanasia policies, including explaining the stories of some people who probably shouldn’t have had access to MAID.
Anyways, sorry for hijacking your comment with a vaguely related rant but you got me thinking!
All excellent points.
Certainly, Canada has expanded eligibility to people with chronic health conditions that will not cause their death and is genuinely looking at adding mental illness (people not presently of sound mind?!) as a sole factor. This seems to expand death with dignity to something more akin to life with dignity. It's a disturbing bar when a country moves into that territory.
Deficiencies in social and medical support are the areas to be addressed and expanded, rather than broadening euthanasia.
Mental health has numerous new treatment options. They should be made available to people who need them.
People suffering from chronic pain should have appropriate pain relief, even if that means they're on medication for the rest of their lives. More research is also needed. Pain isn't a priority. People are supposed to just deal with it.
Quality palliative care should be improved and be easily and widely accessible.
Even so, palliative care and end-of-life care are still going to be inadequate for many people, who prefer quality of life over quantity.
In Canada, like elsewhere, the individual needs sign off by two clinicians, and another clinician to do the prescribing. To me, that's not patient autonomy - the patient is reliant on three independent people to agree with their wishes.
Applications do get rejected, often resulting in suicides, or approval comes too late for a peaceful death.
No person blithely applies to the state to help them end their life when they are terminally ill. . Deep and long thought goes into making that decision. A lot of suffering and diminishment of life has already occurred.
The movable bar for eligibility in Canada is, I agree, morally concerning.
even if women who have an abortion have one for an immoral reason, it should still be legal, right? you don't have to be able to argue for your rights
I oppose assisted suicide and capital punishment. Seamless fabric of life and all that.
And the children are coming three times a week to keep an eye on the sloppy carers, or they are taking care of their relatives every day at home.
Who wrote the first extract you quote?
Someone in the new statesman