Friday, October 10, 2008

Death, Bioethics & Religion

This topic is far more complicated than allowed for in this piece, but the letter is written in such a straightforward and glaring way that it is difficult to avoid or ignore. There are so many issues at play: justice, religion, life / death, suicide, and modernity that it was meant for this group to discuss, and I am suprised to think it has not come up sooner. I found this here, at PZ Meyers's great blog, Pharyngula. I am going to reprint the letter, originally published here, for purposes of easing quotes, etc.
People must accept death at "the hour chosen by God," according to Pope Benedict XVI, leader of the Catholic Church, which is pouring money into the campaign against I-1000.

The hour chosen by God? What does that even mean? Without the intervention of man--and medical science--my mother would have died years earlier. And at the end, even without assisted suicide as an option, my mother had to make her choices. Two hours with the mask off? Six with the mask on? Another two days hooked up to machines? Once things were hopeless, she chose the quickest, if not the easiest, exit. Mask off, two hours. That was my mother's choice, not God's.

Did my mother commit suicide? I wonder what the pope might say.

I know what my mother would say: The same church leaders who can't manage to keep priests from raping children aren't entitled to micromanage the final moments of our lives.

If religious people believe assisted suicide is wrong, they have a right to say so. Same for gay marriage and abortion. They oppose them for religious reasons, but it's somehow not enough for them to deny those things to themselves. They have to rush into your intimate life and deny them to you, too--deny you control over your own reproductive organs, deny you the spouse of your choosing, condemn you to pain (or the terror of it) at the end of your life.

The proper response to religious opposition to choice or love or death can be reduced to a series of bumper stickers: Don't approve of abortion? Don't have one. Don't approve of gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't approve of physician-assisted suicide? For Christ's sake, don't have one. But don't tell me I can't have one--each one--because it offends your God.
I am aware that I hold an extreme position on suicide. I believe that all humans (especially those in free and advanced societies) should have all of the means available to them at their choosing, in sickness or in health, happiness or sadness, to end their own lives as they wish--legally, safely, and with as little pain as possible, if they so desire. Are there competing opinions or differing thoughts on this blog? I am curious.


14 comments:

  1. In an extreme case (such as parkinsons, cancer, etc) your position isn't a difficult one to hold onto, but what about mental illness? What about poverty? If someone is poor and wants to end their life because they feel they will never "measure up" would you support that? What about someone who's depressed and not thinking rationally? What if someone is having a manic episode? I think if you are confining your scope of safe and available suicide to the critical care units then I doubt you would meet much resistance, but if you're proposing that this would be available to anyone, at anytime, I find that impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe there shall be no conditions. A persons life is theirs to terminate as they see fit, and I don't believe the state, or anyone else should have power over their ability to do so safely and quickly. Poor, depressed, happy, rich, it doesn't matter, I believe we all have the power to end our lives at our time of choosing and preventing access to the means of doing so is senseless and unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am aware this is an extreme position, and I don't foresee it ever becoming reality; but I was curious what the other 'lines in the sand' were in this group.

    ReplyDelete
  4. well, my lines at mental illness then, you cant possibly assert that someone who isnt thinking clearly and rationally has the right to take their own life. And tangentally, it's not just "their" life, if you can even speak of such a thing, everyone who knows them has a part in it and thus everyone who knows them will be affected by their death. I wish it was a valid position to be selfish enough to say that "this is my life and mine alone" but its sadly not the case, you wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for myriad others that came before you. Are they all cool with you cutting off their successful and hard won genetic lineage prematurely? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>"you cant possibly assert that someone who isnt thinking clearly and rationally has the right to take their own life"<<

    I can't? Nonsense. I do not disagree with your premise, that there is no such thing as a singular life, an untangled life, a man on an island, and so forth; but, it is entirely possible for a mentally healthy individual not suffering from a terminal illness to desire the termination of their life. Removing this possibility is not winning the argument, it is ending it. Doing so is the opposite of a straw man.

    One may look to Camus, and his 'life of the absurd' for guidance. The Myth of Sisyphus, Caligula, The Stranger, and The Rebel can all be helpful here. The argument I've made never stipulates that the loss of one's life be easy for others to handle. It stipulates that means for its termination be accessible and the decision to terminate wholly and rightfully in the hands of the holder.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What about Eluzhun's point re the poor? A father says to his schmuck son, "Son, I am such a burden to you. I should end my life." The schmuck son says suggestively, "Dad, you are not a burden. We would much rather care for you than send our children to college or save for our own retirement." Dad offs himself with the help of a "suicide aid for the poor" clinic funded by Democrats to ensure the fundamental right to assisted suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What on earth does this post have to do with Democrats? What happened to your gripes and moans about keeping the blog less partisan and more serious? Maybe you'd like to rephrase your question, and then maybe I'll answer it. Pericles, try keeping yourself to the same standards you hold everyone else. Some of us have been making a real effort to keep this blog in line with standards you'd like to see, and then you come and piss on our efforts with something like this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What about Eluzhun's point re the poor? A father says to his schmuck son, "Son, I am such a burden to you. I should end my life." The schmuck son says suggestively, "Dad, you are not a burden. We would much rather care for you than send our children to college or save for our own retirement." Dad offs himself with the help of a "suicide aid for the poor" clinic funded by some group to ensure the fundamental right to assisted suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is an excellent question. I have not contemplated it well in such a way in the past, but my first attempt at a guess is that in order to receive access, there must either be no dependents, or the suicide seeker must be insured for the dependents. There are many life and other forms of insurance that cover suicide, this would be no different, other than the fact that it wasn't happening in the garage or with a firearm, etc. Maybe, this would actually be no different at all, and the asshole father would be just as unethical for offing himself with dependents and no insurance regardless of the means he's utilized.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also, I must stop a brewing flame war on the horizon. I am not suggesting, in any way, that it is society's responsibility to provide access to assisted suicide in my extreme example of a healthy, happy, person. I am saying that I don't believe it is worthwhile for society to excessively limit access to such suicide (for example, limiting to adults only, I see as a reasonable and necessary precaution). These two things are extraordinarily different.

    ReplyDelete
  11. >>>"the suicide seeker must be insured for the dependents."<<<

    Are you kidding? OK. Let me ask the question with this fun fact included:

    A father says to his schmuck son, "Son, I am such a burden to you. I should end my life. That way, at least you and the kids can benefit from my $1,000,000 life insurance policy which I bought before I became disabled and stopped working." The schmuck son says suggestively, "Dad, you are not a burden. We would much rather care for you than send our children to college or save for our own retirement." Dad offs himself with the help of a "suicide aid for the poor" clinic funded by some group to ensure the fundamental right to assisted suicide.

    See the point? The kid practically tells the old man to do it, and, with your new policy, has a million dollar incentive to guilt the guy into it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Given the fact that I would like to think these things through more thoroughly, hence the post, let us try to narrow the question. My stance, broadly, is that assisted suicide should not be restricted, even for those of sound mind and body. Your stance, it appears, is a support of some form of restriction upon assisted suicide. What, exactly, merits supporting restriction of assisted suicide?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eluzhun has already identified one: mental incapacity. Another is coercion, whether economic, psychological, or the threat of, and the desire to avoid, physical force or harm, or even loss of liberty. Another could be plain old mistake. Now, before you protest that your rule is limited to free actors with perfect information, remember that such a person is difficult to identify even with oversight by institutions, such courts. Would we have suicide courts which hold min-hearings to ensure sound mind and freedom from coercion? Another issue is this: One of your staple arguments against capital punishment is that the State should never engage in the taking of life wholly independent of the issue of guilt or innocence, i.e., even in the rare case where we have perfect confidence of the guilt of the convicted. If so, how do you square that with the State now handing out hemlock or a 12 gauge to convicts facing multiple life sentences, especially if there are strong doubts about guilt in the first instance. Surely, that leads not only to the execution of the guilty, but to the execution of the innocent--the very object your policy on capital punishment seeks to avoid. Let's go further. The law changes, and state-assisted suicide becomes legal. Two thousand prisoners serving life sentences in Illinois bring a class action to guarantee their fundamental right to determine the time, place, and manner of their own demise, and, to that end, seek a state-wide remedy that lethal injection should be available to them all. Do we provide the service? And, if so, how do you square that with your prohibition on the death penalty even for the truly guilty who, in today's world, you would not execute under any circumstances? Some even ask for death and are denied it in certain states. How about them?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The questions regarding prisoners and capital punishment are interesting ones. You correctly summarize my position on capital punishment. In short, I do not believe the state or its citizens should have the power to take a life in matters of law (war is obviously a different story).

    The premise is easily continued with my sentiment on the issue of suicide. Why should the state or its citizens have the power to force life upon those who no longer desire it?

    As per the issue of those on death row or are otherwise incarcerated, the simple answer is yes, as with other citizens, if a prisoner no longer desires their own life they shall be free to end it. How is justice or continuity lacking in such a position?

    The conundrum really appears to be whether or not the state should be in the position of providing said prisoners the means. This is simpler than it seems given my initial position. The overall notion is that the state should not be in the business of dictating life or death. Meaning of course, the state should not be in the position of providing suicide materiel for anyone at all, prisoner or not.

    As mentioned in an earlier comment, I don't think the state should be providing the means to suicide and above, I simply don't think they should be in the business of excessively restricting their use. The same applies here. The state should not be in the position of providing the means to free men nor the imprisoned. If prisoners want to kill themselves, they must acquire the means. Just as the free citizen is not receiving their suicide materiel from the state, neither shall the prisoner.

    This gets more complicated in terms of tactics, meaning we wouldn't want the misuse of suicide materiel for murder, etc., in prisons. We must then ask, does the state have a responsibility to protect its prisoners from other prisoners? Of course it does. Does this mean there may have to be dedicated 'suicide rooms' or something of the sort? Possibly. The thought is a gruesome one, but its the only way I see to protect those prisoners who have no desire to die from those who may wish to misuse suicide materiel for the purpose of harming other prisoners.

    ReplyDelete

Please post your comment(s) here. To reply to a specific comment, be sure to paste the appropriate @ displayed into the box below as the first line.