Canadian euthanasia is getting a lot of bad press. This article seeks to defend medical assistance in dying (MAID, sometimes referred to as “MAiD” for no good reason), and refute some of the main criticisms of the program as currently practiced while arguing that there’s little to fear from its imminent expansion. Canada has perhaps the most permissive euthanasia laws in the world, so by defending MAID, I will defend all other systems against attacks they go too far, and in effect argue that no nation in the world goes far enough in making assisted suicide available and convenient for those who want it.
First, I will show that the MAID program is currently small, and likely represents cases of the most extreme suffering given the data that we have. I then go on to refute arguments against MAID that have appeared in the popular press. Sometimes, these arguments are simply false, as when it is claimed that it will eventually lead to large numbers of healthy young adults killing themselves with state sanction. Other times, the arguments may be correct but actually make the case for euthanasia. It is true, for example, that some people might feel “pressured” to commit suicide because they don’t want to be burdens on their families or the government. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this — in practically every other kind of situation, it is usually considered pro-social to care about the impact your life has on others. This gets to the point that my support for euthanasia does not simply rest on libertarian and utilitarian grounds, but also on the idea that people should behave in ways that consider the common good and that, yes, preserve human dignity. The state’s interest in saving costs, as long as it’s going to pay for healthcare, is also legitimate, although I won’t dwell on that here.
This is not a paywall. The rest of this article is available to free subscribers of the newsletter. Just leave your email below to continue reading.
I am Dutch so this is a familiar topic for most of my life :-( A large part of my life when I was part of the what was then called left, I supported your line of reasoning enthusiastically. However, some cases in Holland changed my mind. The taboo on killing is imho a Chesterton fence, it is sacred for a reason. Once you remove this fence, I fail to see why your eloquence and logic reasoning skill could not take it further. Where is the next fence?
I strongly believe that our moral intuition evolved to develop successful offspring. It does not have logic, it is not scientific, it is just a tool of the evolution to let us do the heavy work for the next generation. It motivated us quite well for many eons and brought us in a time where we're extremely prosperous by historic standards.
Alas. In the last decades your kind of logic reasoning and eloquent style brought our prosperous societies on a glide slope; I blame the universities. Agree, I am often seduced and charmed but if we take a step back and see how well we do on the next generations, both quantitatively and qualitative then it is hard to deny that we seem to be failing in our most basic task. Many of our girls seem to have given up on having kids (and their mothers were already quite reluctant) and now you seem to want to give up on our old, sick and disabled because they are a nuisance.
I agree that I lack the eloquent reasoning that fatally destroys your argument; I stand here with only my moral conviction. A believe that some fences attacked by your arguments actually have a reason. Even if they are hard to articulate now.
I remember a comparable situation with Haidt's moral story about incest. If it is consensual, legal, surefire prophylactics, and safe, why not? Liberals tend to answer (reluctantly) that it should then be OK, conservatives reject it out of hand. However, feeling torn for some time on this topic I realized one day why we have this taboo. If it was a normal practice, there were bound to be cases where younger siblings mimicked it and then the prophylactics might be missing. In this case, my intuition just warned me for something that was not obvious in the problem description.
I believe there is a good reason why actively killing people feels so morally repulsive for humans; I could never ask a doctor to do this for me. I think we should tread very carefully in this area.
I’m disgusted by the long winded arguments on assisted suicide in many variations, this one MAiD. The folks who have the luxury of time and health go on and on about the morality, politics and expense or damage to society. For those of us facing the reality of needing options these arguments are ludicrous.
Who among us would deny the justice of facilitating the euthanasia for a suffering animal? Yet it changes entirely for a human. I’ve got a severely disabled adult son with chronic pain. My goal is to relieve his intractable extreme suffering and thus honor his dignity. At some point I’ll have to make decisions as his guardian and I’ve always known there are limits to any options for him.
Quality of life is most important to him, daily. Just as important is a “good death”. It all is part of HIS existence. I fight for his “good life” and I’ll fight for his “good death” when inevitable and the only way for him to stop unbearable, severe and excruciating suffering.