Assisted dying again
May. 9th, 2006 10:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sawylYet another entry on ethics I'm afraid, this one prompted by today's Guardian article by Jane Campbell. The piece provides insight into some tof the things raised by Jonathan Glover's recent essay and contrasts with Mary Warnock's recent comments on assisted dying, both of which I've mentioned before.
While I think Campbell has blurred some of the issues, she also raises some good points. She notes that the definition of "terminally ill" is somewhat nebulous and may potentially overlap with something more usually defined as a disability. The article states that, because the bill allows assisted dying, it is possible that people might be tempted to use the option earlier than they might if they weren't required to be physically capable of taking the drugs provided by their doctor. Quite possibly, but I'm not sure whether this is an argument against assisted dying in general or an argument in favour of euthanasia. The worry over societal pressure to opt for assisted dying in place of expensive palliative care is a tricky one, but it's one that is probably best tackled by debate and discussion, helping people to ensure they know their own mind and have sufficiently clear views not be pushed around by money-grabbing relatives or skinflint politicians...
On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced that the article justifies its apparent conclusion. It appears to create a false dichotomy between the provision of facilities for those who wish to continue living for as long as possible and those who wish to end their lives. The two do not seem to me to be in conflict. Campbell implies at one point that the only reason that Diane Pretty might have had to seek to end her life was unhappiness with her living arrangements. While it's possible this might have been the case, it seems more likely that Pretty's motivations, goals, her life preferences, were simply different to Campbell's and as result, she came to a different conclusion about whether her life was worth living. It seems to me that we need to apply a certain amount of value pluralism to the problem, accept that it's quite possible for other people to have different views to us over complex issues like assisted dying and agree to remove the legal barriers, so that the whole becomes a question of individual choice.
So, summary: good points, but I don't buy into the assisted dying or good standard of living for the disabled/terminally ill dichotomy.
While I think Campbell has blurred some of the issues, she also raises some good points. She notes that the definition of "terminally ill" is somewhat nebulous and may potentially overlap with something more usually defined as a disability. The article states that, because the bill allows assisted dying, it is possible that people might be tempted to use the option earlier than they might if they weren't required to be physically capable of taking the drugs provided by their doctor. Quite possibly, but I'm not sure whether this is an argument against assisted dying in general or an argument in favour of euthanasia. The worry over societal pressure to opt for assisted dying in place of expensive palliative care is a tricky one, but it's one that is probably best tackled by debate and discussion, helping people to ensure they know their own mind and have sufficiently clear views not be pushed around by money-grabbing relatives or skinflint politicians...
On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced that the article justifies its apparent conclusion. It appears to create a false dichotomy between the provision of facilities for those who wish to continue living for as long as possible and those who wish to end their lives. The two do not seem to me to be in conflict. Campbell implies at one point that the only reason that Diane Pretty might have had to seek to end her life was unhappiness with her living arrangements. While it's possible this might have been the case, it seems more likely that Pretty's motivations, goals, her life preferences, were simply different to Campbell's and as result, she came to a different conclusion about whether her life was worth living. It seems to me that we need to apply a certain amount of value pluralism to the problem, accept that it's quite possible for other people to have different views to us over complex issues like assisted dying and agree to remove the legal barriers, so that the whole becomes a question of individual choice.
So, summary: good points, but I don't buy into the assisted dying or good standard of living for the disabled/terminally ill dichotomy.
