Massachusetts had a ballot initiative on this issue a few years back. The initiative would have legalized physician-assisted suicide, but it narrowly failed to pass. There were compelling arguments on both sides, I thought; I wasn't sure which position to support. As a liberal, I think bodily autonomy is a really important principle. However, there are a few arguments that I find compelling on the "opposed" side:
1. Legalization possibly makes it easier for such a decision to be coerced in certain circumstances. Generally, I view this argument as relatively weak, since it seems to just favor coercion in the other direction. But it's not so balanced in this case, someone coerced out of suicide still has some freedom. (Conservatives are generally sympathetic to this argument as well.)
2. Some of the things that make illness and death "undignified" really could be mitigated by other means. For example, disability advocates who opposed the Massachusetts measure noted that people who commit physician-assisted suicide often cite worries about dependency and "being a burden" in their reasoning. But those feelings relate to more than just that individual's relationship to their medical condition, they're related to wider social attitudes about human worth, social obligations, and differences in human ability. (There is surely common ground to be found here, too, but the rhetorical landscape is littered with so many of those triggers you mentioned two episodes ago. I'll just note that most people spend some time at significantly less than peak ability, and advances in medical technology might increase how many people and how long of a time.)
3. People overestimate what range of circumstances they would find unbearable. Human psychological flexibility and resilience is surprising. (I think liberals are a bit more willing than conservatives to favor public policy that protects people from their own cognitive biases.)
Massachusetts had a ballot initiative on this issue a few years back. The initiative would have legalized physician-assisted suicide, but it narrowly failed to pass. There were compelling arguments on both sides, I thought; I wasn't sure which position to support. As a liberal, I think bodily autonomy is a really important principle. However, there are a few arguments that I find compelling on the "opposed" side:
ReplyDelete1. Legalization possibly makes it easier for such a decision to be coerced in certain circumstances. Generally, I view this argument as relatively weak, since it seems to just favor coercion in the other direction. But it's not so balanced in this case, someone coerced out of suicide still has some freedom. (Conservatives are generally sympathetic to this argument as well.)
2. Some of the things that make illness and death "undignified" really could be mitigated by other means. For example, disability advocates who opposed the Massachusetts measure noted that people who commit physician-assisted suicide often cite worries about dependency and "being a burden" in their reasoning. But those feelings relate to more than just that individual's relationship to their medical condition, they're related to wider social attitudes about human worth, social obligations, and differences in human ability. (There is surely common ground to be found here, too, but the rhetorical landscape is littered with so many of those triggers you mentioned two episodes ago. I'll just note that most people spend some time at significantly less than peak ability, and advances in medical technology might increase how many people and how long of a time.)
3. People overestimate what range of circumstances they would find unbearable. Human psychological flexibility and resilience is surprising. (I think liberals are a bit more willing than conservatives to favor public policy that protects people from their own cognitive biases.)