A right to die
I meant to write this post a long, long time ago. I was prompted to actually do it right now when reading an article on the BBC News website about euthanasia.
At my university, I participated in an honours course about practical applications of Ethics. We covered a multitude of subjects, including (in random order) the use of marking DNA in criminal investigations (ie, putting out notices saying “based on the DNA found on this homicide victim, we think the perpetrator was black and had brown eyes), Food Ethics (what rights do animals have, should we do something about the bio-industry, and if so, what) and euthanasia: what is the right to die, do we even have it, and what are its limits.
We had guest lecturers for all these subjects. For euthanasia, our guest lecturer was Judge Eugene Sutorius, who used to be a lawyer defending doctors in assisted suicide cases back in the 20th century, and helped push the courts and the Dutch government to legislation. Currently, doctor-assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands, if and only if:
- The patient repeatedly and explicitly expresses the desire to die.
- The patient’s decision is made well-informed, free and enduring.
- The patient is suffering from a severe physical or mental pain with no prospect of relief.
- All other options for care have been exhausted or refused by the patient.
- Euthanasia is carried out by a qualified physician, who must verify all the above.
- The physician consults one other physician, who must verify all the above.
- The physician informs the local coroner that euthanasia has occurred.
In class and small groups we discussed whether euthanasia should also be possible for people suffering from Altzheimer’s, for example – there are currently euthanasia declarations available, which some people sign, saying they want to be euthanized if they are so demented they don’t recognize their close relatives anymore. Whether or not this is reasonable is debatable, given that it’s questionable if people in such a state are even the same person they were before, and hence whether they had any right to condemn this ‘new person’ that they have become to death.
This question is certainly interesting, but not the reason I’m writing this. Sutorius explained that on one occurrence he and some others had been asked to come to the US where one state (looking at the BBC article, it was apparently Oregon) was approving legislation very similar (and in fact, partly based on) the legislation we have in the Netherlands. The writers of the bill wanted them to (honourarily or whatever) co-sign the legislation. Sutorius then explained he refused: due to the current American medical insurance system, a lot of people do not have medical insurance. He gave the following example: what if you’re a 70-year old male, you’re suffering from Multiple Sclerosis. You have 5 children and no medical insurance. Now, given the nature of MS, there is a reasonable case for severe physical as well as mental suffering, and while there is plenty of medication available, there is definitely no complete cure possible at this time. Given enough medication you can have a reasonable life for an extended period of time, but that’s about it. You “buy time”, as it were.
The problem, Sutorius describes, occurs when such a patient starts doing some maths. In a year or two, he will have used up his savings. In another five or so years, he will have used up his children’s savings. And then he will die. And suddenly, cheap euthanasia starts looking like a nice alternative. He’s had his share of life, and he’d be happier if he didn’t ‘kill’ (oh, irony) his children financially. So then, euthanasia becomes an equivalent alternative to available treatment, as opposed to a final call. This is wrong. People should not die because they can’t afford their medication.
I agree with Sutorius – and this is why I am wary of “Dr. Death”. Sure, good euthanasia legislation is necessary, and doctors shouldn’t be prosecuted if they did the right thing given their patient’s medical condition and wishes. But this should only occur given appropriate medical insurance for everyone, so euthanasia does NOT become an alternative to treatment, instead of a final call after all treatment has failed or proved useless.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:24
What do you think of the argument that as God created all of us and gave us life, and we are precious to him, so only he has the right to decide when life is ended? After all, the Bible says “You are not your own; you were bought at a price.” (1 Cor 6:19-20). If my life on this earth is not my own, but belongs to Christ, surely I don’t have a right to decide when it ends?
June 4th, 2007 at 22:52
Gerv: I think that’s a fine argument – for someone who believes the Bible to be the truth, and believes in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, one might say, that doesn’t include everyone down on this little green earth we all inhabit, and I don’t feel I have a right to tell other people what their reason for life (or death) should be. Just like I wouldn’t want, say, a Hindu to enforce their beliefs on me, I don’t think it would be right for me to force my beliefs on others (Hindu or not). See also Mt 7:12.
What’s left, then, are things like the universal declaration of human rights, which most if not all reasonable people agree about. These stipulate that everyone has a right to life, liberty and person (article 3). In my opinion, that means that one should not be forced to consider suicide as an option for the wellbeing of one’s children, purely because of financial distress, and I feel that follows logically from that article and the declaration as a whole.