John, when it comes to something that is quite literally a matter of life and death, I think that the slippery slope argument has rather more force than is usually the case – any changes to the existing legislation would need to be drawn up very carefully indeed. The concern that people might be bullied into ‘choosing’ death is legitimate, as is the fear that medical staff might be compelled to assist in a procedure that they believe to be akin to murder.
That said, if we disregard the religious objections (and we should), the argument for change in at least one instance-that of the physically incapacitated individual who wishes to end it all but is unable to do so-appears to me to be irresistible. I’m not so worried about the able-bodied: they can almost always make their own arrangements, but the plight of, say, the paralyzed man who is desperate to die but has no realistic way of achieving that objective for himself, is truly hideous – and so are the laws that stand in his way. They should be changed.
Ah, the “million-dollar baby” scenario. Except that any person in such a situation, so long as they are mentally competent, already has the legal right — recognized both constitutionally and at common law — to refuse medical treatment. For example, if an individual is on a ventilator and does not wish to be, they can refuse further treatment with the ventillator. That is already provided for in the law, and there is no need to go changing things to allow for a “right to suicide” (which really means, “a right to get help committing suicide”).
At least, that seems to be a conservative approach to things.
There cannot be a meaningful debate about the liberty of choosing death if the abuse issue is not treated as a distinct topic. There are numerous things that people might be “bullied into” so any conceivable liberty can be withheld for this reason.
Conservatives should be really careful about sentences with the structure “when it comes to….the slippery slope argument has rather more force than is usually the case” because any liberal will point out (with good reason) that his reasons for not allowing people to make their own decisions on issue X falls under the same rubric.
This reminds me…Johnny Got His Gun is on TCM (US) Wednesday night. Consider it a timely hypothetical.
Our medical system bullies people into doing all sorts of things. This is reprehensible, but acting as though this sort of abuse rules out the possibility of letting people choose death is equally so.
Which is just silly. Medical staff have the same choices people everywhere have when faced with morally dubious demands at their jobs – to give in or refuse and risk various kinds of retaliation. And that’s precisely as it should be.
We don’t accept this “argument” when it comes to abortion. Why should we accept it when speaking of suicide?
@Mark in Spokane
In theory. In practice, that right is often ignored. Most especially in situations where a patient’s condition causes them to lose consciousness – many medical professionals hold that refusal of treatment must be honored only as long as refusal can be actively made. Once the patient passes out, they feel themselves released from the obligation to withhold the treatments the patients previously refused.
Caledonian,
If the patient executes a medical directive, the doctor must honor it under the law. Such forms for a medical directive are available online, and hospitals usually provide such forms to incoming patients.
Really, before people advocate “reforming” the law, they should really try to understand what the law in place actually is.
Pingback: Secular Right » The Right to Refuse Medical Treatment
Mark in Spokane,
Thank you for assuming I’m ignorant of the basic principles of the issue at hand. May I direct your attention to reality, in which advance directives apply when someone is no longer capable of making their own care decisions and is dying? The situations I’m discussing involve patients making their preferences quite clear, and then being ignored when they lose the ability to express those preferences.