Legalising assisted suicide: Theory and Practice
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
Legalising assisted suicide would be a profound moral error - spiked.
One of the fundamental ideas of libertarianism is self-ownership. If you have legal capacity to decide (i.e. you are adult and sane) then you can do what you like with yourself and your body. If you want to mutilate or kill yourself, that's your choice and no-one else's. So assisted suicide should present me, as a libertarian, with no moral problem. Yet it does. In theory, it's fine but in practice there are serious issues.
There have been moments when the only reason I didn't commit suicide was because of the effect on the people I love. The first time was during a long-ago marital crisis. The dark web didn't then exist then but it was easy to find out how. The government helpfully provided the information by restricting the sale of certain over-the-counter pharmaceuticals to safe amounts. All I had to do was tour pharmacies and buy ten times those amounts. I returned home and poured myself water to wash down the pills. As I held the glass, I imagined my toddler daughters hearing I was dead. I couldn't do that to them so decided to live - for many months in profound misery.
Many tales like mine end differently in the United States. One of the reasons gun control advocates always talk about gun deaths rather than homicides is that so many gun deaths are suicides. A suicidal American with a gun has the means to act. Suicide rates are higher among doctors and dentists for the same reason. They always have the means at hand.
That said, I'd rather have freedom than safety. In a free society, I'd favour assisted suicide so that frailer people could pay for help to act on their free choices. Private doctors would be governed in their conduct by their professional bodies and – more importantly – by their liability insurers. They'd have to ensure their patient was legally competent and suggest alternatives so they didn't get sued. Friends or family asked to help someone die would have similar legal concerns – at least about the would-be suicide's mental health. There would be many unfortunate outcomes because life isn't perfect, but those are protections enough. It's better we make some wrong decisions than that all decisions are taken away from us.
I can't support it in Britain however because of the NHS. When it was created, our ancestors thought they were nationalising the provision of medical services. In truth, as Labour's current rhetoric about saving it money by focussing on prevention shows, we nationalised our bodies. If we make the wrong health choices, the cost falls on the state so – inevitably – the state wants to make the choices.
This is nonsense of course. The state doesn't have the means to meet any costs other than by robbing us or borrowing against our credit. Our wrong choices (drugs, smoking, obesity, etc) tend to mean we're not around for the really big hit on the NHS - old age. Many old people access medical services constantly. That's when most get the benefit of the money they paid in to the system during their productive lives. But if the government can off the elderly, they will have more tax money available for things they really care about, In Labour's case, they also know the elderly generally don't vote for them. Killing them improves their re-election prospects, just as giving the vote to sixteen year olds will.
It is frankly sinister that Labour is suddenly raising this issue now in the context of (a) the black hole rhetoric used to justify cancelling the winter fuel allowances, and (b) its review of the NHS. I have no doubt that their rationale is to get rid of as many of its most costly patients as possible. If they don't die of hypothermia at home, they can be guilted into not being a burden on the hallowed NHS.
The linked article cites examples of horror stories emerging from the Netherlands, where old people now desperately resist going into hospital because they know they'll be encouraged to die, and Canada. Canada is a perfect example because it's the only other country that still has a Soviet health system like ours. Canada's MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) programme is now the country's fifth leading cause of death. When Christine Gauthier, a Paralympian and veteran asked the authorities if she could have a stairlift installed in her home, she received a letter asking if she had considered euthanasia.
From the point of view of apparatchiks managing a state health service, every patient will present a choice. Provide treatment that may costs hundreds of thousands of pounds or offer a cheap death. If you're an old lady like my mum; unable to take care of yourself, sad and lonely in widowhood, guilty about the strain you're putting on your care-giving daughter, etc., how likely are you to say yes? For that matter, if you're a single, unemployed, young man suffering from depression why wouldn't you? It's happening, big-time, in the Netherlands.
There, physically healthy young people are being euthanised to ‘cure’ conditions like depression and anxiety.
It's the old people I mainly worry about though. They'll be pressured to check out early not just to save the NHS money (and its staff trouble) but to accelerate the inheritance of an indebted generation waiting for them to die. Most families are loving and caring, no doubt, but there are plenty of Dickensian rascals waiting at bedsides – metaphorical and otherwise.
The Left are skilful and relentless about normalising whatever they've decided is necessary for the advancement of their cause. They are masters of both euphemism and agitprop. They demonise their opponents and sanctify their supporters. Once they have their foot in this door, they will keep pushing it open and many will die. Thanks to the NHS, one in five deaths in Britain are already avoidable. Now Labour wants us to stop even trying to avoid death. It won't end well.
Comments