A Secular Case Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

[SteveII]

It's not my business. It becomes all of our business if we give the person the right to have a doctor do it for him.

How so? If I seek and attain a medically-assisted suicide, how does that affect you? Even if we give an individual the right to seek assisted suicide, that doesn't require you to do so. You're free to enjoy you misery at leisure.

I explained ALL that in my OP.

[SteveII]

Steve, you come from a religion that considers suffering to be good…a way to get closer to god.  Your view is skewed to assume that’s the correct position everyone should take.  I take the position that each of us can decide what we can tolerate and make our own decisions.  I would never force my position on you so why do you have this need to force yours on me?  Oh, yeah…Jesus.  Just no.

red herring.

I made four arguments why I think "my position" is important to everyone. Address those is you want a longer response.

[SteveII]

I thought I made it clear that I was addressing your point number #1 and in keeping with your requested guidelines stayed with that.  You spoke of the devaluation of life and the risk to human "dignity."  

But those are not your determinations to make as the self-appointed guardian of 'dignity.'

Can you really think that people living in a nursing home have 'dignity'?  A lot of them sit there in wet diapers all day because of the staffing shortages.  They are warehouses for the dying.  Thanks but no thanks.  We give dogs more dignity than that.

So then here is the relevant paragraphs from the OP:

When dignity depends on autonomy or “quality of life” alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality. Yet dignity should not hinge on productivity, health, or independence. The limitations of aging and illness foster relationships of care that enrich our understanding of human life. Elderly or severely ill individuals, through their reliance on others, provide opportunities for empathy, compassion, and deeper familial connections. Younger generations learn patience, responsibility, and the moral importance of caring for those in need—wisdom that cannot be gained if we equate a “good” life with one free from struggle or dependency.

Beyond Simple Calculations of Pain and Pleasure
Utilitarian frameworks often prioritize measurable outcomes, like the relief of pain, but can neglect other moral goods. The intrinsic worth of human life, the character-building nature of caregiving, and the depth of relationships forged in hardship do not translate neatly into a cost-benefit analysis. Similarly, ethical pragmatism, while valuing context, offers no firm foundation against the gradual erosion of respect for life if expedience consistently trumps principle.

I think my concept of human dignity is more robust that yours. Yours relies on "functionality". To your point about nursing homes and dirty diapers, that seems to be a gross violation of dignity not a loss of dignity.

Which makes me think our definitions of dignity are different. I mean the intrinsic worth of every human being, grounded in their humanity rather than their abilities, autonomy, or social utility. Recognizing someone’s dignity means treating them as an end in themselves—worthy of respect and care—rather than reducing them to what they can or cannot do. Everyone in the nursing home, regardless of the condition of their diapers, is owed dignity.

Anyway, what specific part above rings untrue for you?

[epronovost]

I spent quite an amount of time explaining the difference.

I think you failed to make your point across in clear way.

If letting a baby starve is murder and smashing a baby's head with a hammer is also murder, why is letting a hospice patient starve not murder, but poisoning him (with their consent) is?

As emotionally compelling as some scenarios might be, I made four arguments of why there are other important ethical concerns at stake. Address them directly.

Your first one is a fallacious comparison. No, quality of life doesn't reduce humans to their functionality. You can't make such an assertion without proof or evidence. It would be just as fallacious to equivocate that placing importance on life reduce humans to basic biological function and completely devalues the human emotional and psychological experience entirely. The rest of your argument asserts possibilities that are not given. Yes, experiencing aging can foster care into people, but it can also do the opposite or nothing at all. It's not because you experience something that you learn, by necessity, a very specific lesson and develop specific values or skills. There are also other ways to develop the skills of and values of patience, care, tenderness or responsibility. Caring for children or pets or adult friends are also places where such things can be learned. You don't specifically need to look at people in agony as they wither away from terminal illness or great age. This line of reasoning is thus largely spurious and naive at best. It's a rationalization not reasoning.

On to the second argument. That one thing can be dangerous doesn't mean that danger can't be effectively managed or that the risk isn't worth the benefits. You can't throw the baby with the bathwater simply because there is a risk. Inaction also has risks. Right now there are people killing themselves in brutal ways, alone and afraid instead of surrounded by their loved one's because they have no help. There are people rotting in jails because they helped a loved one escape agony and there are people suffering more than human can stand for months or years with no hope of relief of remission. Those are tragedies too and represent the risk of forbidding medically assisted suicide. You are correct, there are serious and real risks and challenges associated with assisted suicide and euthanasia, but there are benefits too and there are ways to mitigate risks. There are also risks and costs associated with the status quo.

The third argument is poor. "Do no harm" is a statement of intent and desire. There are many ways in which medical treatment can cause harm of various nature. Note also that doctors can already stop treatment on hospice patient at their or their family's request thus killing patient by willing inaction; basically starving them to death or slowly overdosing them on painkillers over a matter of days. Killing a patient who will die and wants to die at their request doesn't, by necessity, cause harm.

The fourth argument is largely resting on the same assumption and logical issues than the second. It's not because a thing presents serious and real risk of harm that it must be stopped or that those risks can't be managed.

QUESTION: What do you think about my sentence: "In countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, the initial focus on terminal illness and extreme suffering expanded to include non-terminal conditions such as depression, chronic pain, or mental illness. " Good? Bad? Something else?

Neither good nor bad on its own. One of the key component of the right to life and the right to dignity, both fundamental human rights is the ability to be able to choose things for yourself and have those choice respected. If you choose to live despite the agony you are in, you deserve compassion and treatment. If you choose to die, you deserve to die surrounded by your loved one's and in the most peaceful and painless manner we can provide. Life is not precious; people are precious and it's because people are precious that their life is, not the other way around. That some choose a path doesn't lessen the value of the path of others. It's not because you like sunsets that sunrise are less beautiful to my eyes. The same goes for life.

That difference in values and assessment between you and I is probably why we arrive at different conclusion on this issue in my opinion. If you believe people are valuable because they are alive, then I completely understand your fears and repulsion at the prospect of suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. If you value life because it's something that people have and desire, then the prospect of suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia is less frightening and repulsive.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I love it when Stevie wants to try to pretend to have a "secular" conversation. He has shown time and time again that he cannot separate his faith from any topic.

[Vorpal]

I love it when Stevie wants to try to pretend to have a "secular" conversation. He has shown time and time again that he cannot separate his faith from any topic.

He does better than most. The real question is can forum members refrain from randomly bringing his religion up in these secular threads?

[jerry mcmasters]

I love it when Stevie wants to try to pretend to have a "secular" conversation. He has shown time and time again that he cannot separate his faith from any topic.

He's not pretending, he's just trying to meet us on our own grounds, i.e., "If one were to look at this issue from a purely secular point of view, than here is how this issue should be seen blah blah blah."  It doesn't make him right but it makes him fair, much better than religious trolls that fall back on the rightness of their position in some form of religious justification or religious doctrine.  I don't think he's trying to deceive us that he's not a theist.

[epronovost]

I love it when Stevie wants to try to pretend to have a "secular" conversation. He has shown time and time again that he cannot separate his faith from any topic.

He doesn't want to have a secular conversation; he wants two things. First, to test his smokescreen argument. Is the smokescreen good or not. Is it convincing and logically sound. Can he use our language and frame of reference to convince us of his values. Second, he wants to test if he can "distil" his dogmatic position on morality and ethics derived from religion into secular arguments. I think Steve is convinced of the truth of his dogmas and thus also believes that his dogmatic position on morality and ethics derived from his religion are true. If they are true, then they must be able to be distilled into secular and purely logical and irrefutable arguments. It's thus both an exercise in rhetoric, an intellectual form of entertainment and a genuine expression and "test" of his faith. I find it pretty interesting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How so? If I seek and attain a medically-assisted suicide, how does that affect you? Even if we give an individual the right to seek assisted suicide, that doesn't require you to do so. You're free to enjoy you misery at leisure.

I explained ALL that in my OP.

Not really, no. You may think you did, but there's so many holes, and a few fallacies, in your rationale that it's unconvincing.

[Paleophyte]

I love it when Stevie wants to try to pretend to have a "secular" conversation. He has shown time and time again that he cannot separate his faith from any topic.

He does better than most. The real question is can forum members refrain from randomly bringing his religion up in these secular threads?

No, the real question is, "Can he?" It's proven a problem before for his "secular" treatment of moral issues.

[Paleophyte]

Much of our historical moral and ethical thinking is rooted in religion (specifically Christianity in the west)

As are such worthy questions as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and whether witches should be stones, drowned, burnt, or pressed to death. And since I'm not going to limit my criticism to the West, look up the chilling tale of Realgar Wine (<--- Protip: These two words should never be placed together) for superstition gone horribly awry in traditional Eastern practices.

Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide can erode the foundational principle that every human life carries intrinsic worth.

This is the same hole that your other argument fell down. Intrinsic worth necessitates an external set of Values and Somebody to hold said Values and your "secular" argument is exposed as requiring a Higher Power.

ARGUMENT #2: THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF EXPANDING ELIGIBILITY

Yay! A Slippery Slope Fallacy! Every human breathing lives on a slippery slope. Get used to living in a world of shades of grey.

On a pragmatic note, we've had this in Canada for over a decade without falling down a slippery slope and we're hardly the only country in the world to manage this. The US has it too, in practice, implemented quietly by the prescription of vast doses of painkillers. The only real differences are that your system lacks a meaningful legal framework to protect anybody, heaps shame on the patients, and the fear of litigation for the doctors.

ARGUMENT #3: THE COMPROMISE OF MEDICAL ETHICS

Doesn't exist and never has. When the life in question entails only suffering and the patient's will is clear then the doctor is under no obligation to subvert that will. If the doctor has any personal qualms then they can easily refer the patient to a colleague who doesn't.

ARGUMENT #4: THE DANGER OF COERCION AND ABUSE

Every system invented by humans has the potential for abuse. The argument that we must have a perfect system is nothing more than deliberately letting the perfect be the enemy of the good because it disagrees with your personal preferences. If you were truly worried about any real danger of coercion and abuse then some of your most cherished establishments would be a heap of glowing embers and you'd be holding an empty matchbox and some toasty marshmallows.

On another pragmatic note, would this be the danger of coercion to remain alive after the opioids have stopped cutting the pain while the bone cancer eats you alive from the inside out? Asking for my devout and departed grandfather-in-law.

Counter-Argument #0: Should "The State" determine the ending of our life?
By what right do you and yours subvert my will and determine my ending for me? Tread careful with your reasoning here or I'll turn it on its head and have you commit state-ordered suicide. I'm not going to get all meta-ethical on you, I'll simply suggest that I've known more than a few states, past and present, that I would have some very serious qualms about handing this sort of absolute power to.

[1Sam15]

I love it when Stevie wants to try to pretend to have a "secular" conversation. He has shown time and time again that he cannot separate his faith from any topic.

He does better than most. The real question is can forum members refrain from randomly bringing his religion up in these secular threads?

One’s religion controls their decisions and actions.

[Alan V]

If assisted suicides were made legal, I am quite sure that any number of safeguards would be placed around the system to prevent the kinds of abuses just about anyone could imagine. 

I am also convinced that certain doctors would specialize in assisted suicides, so that no doctor would be forced to administer any who was not comfortable doing so.

Religious people never seem to adjust their thinking to a pluralistic society.  They want to be involved in all the decisions for every individual.

A secular case could be made both for and against assisted suicides, but that's not the point.  The point is what each individual wants and believes.

Regarding your last sentence: the world does not work like that. As I pointed out in all of the arguments, there is a societal toll that will almost certainly be paid. Much of it has to do with reshaping the entire culture to adopt a new definition of human dignity--one that is contingent on external circumstances. Moving such an important question into the subjective realm is is alarming. The right to die will almost certainly start becoming the obligation to die after a generation or two.

Don't think so?  We had hardly any nursing homes 100 years ago. Think about the dynamics and expectations of elderly parents and their children have today. I can't tell you how many times I have heard "we don't want to be a burden on our children" as people get older. Do you think these attitudes will magically freeze in place and not continue the clear progression of the last 100-150 years?

Pain and suffering are subjective, but very real.  The rest is a slippery slope argument.

People who believe in good and evil often miss the point that there are potential pluses and minuses in anything. (The world wasn't made with our interests in mind.)  So as I also said, safeguards.

You would have to do a cost-benefit analysis if you really want to be thorough.

[Alan V]

He does better than most. The real question is can forum members refrain from randomly bringing his religion up in these secular threads?

No, the real question is, "Can he?" It's proven a problem before for his "secular" treatment of moral issues.

It was not random to bring up Steve's religion if his motivation is in fact religious.  If he had a pluralistic rather than an authoritarian perspective, he wouldn't object to people making their own decisions in such painful, difficult, and morally compromised circumstances.

[Mathilda]

I'm completely torn on the issue. I firmly believe in body autonomy. I believe people should be allowed to end their lives. And if they're unable to do it themselves then others should not be criminalised for ending the suffering of loved ones.

But I also don't think governments actively engaging in eugenics and genocide of their own populations for the sake of economic profits can't be trusted.

This includes the UK and US.

[SYZ]

Euthanasia vs. Assisted Suicide vs. Refusal of Treatment

• Euthanasia: Someone else (e.g., a doctor) performs the final act that ends the patient’s life—like administering a lethal injection.
  
• Assisted suicide: A doctor or another party helps the patient end their own life—often by prescribing lethal medication—but the patient themself performs the final act.
  
• Refusal of treatment (“right to die” in a narrower sense): A patient declines or withdraws from life-sustaining measures, allowing a natural death to occur.
  

For starters, it's obvious that you know very little about Voluntary Assisted Dying.

I actually started to write a detailed response to your initial
posting, but after a few minutes reading and rereading it, I
realised it was a lot to do about nothing, and not worth my time.

The underlying religious moralising in most of your arguments
makes them null and void. Sorry.

[Alan V]

I'm completely torn on the issue. I firmly believe in body autonomy. I believe people should be allowed to end their lives. And if they're unable to do it themselves then others should not be criminalised for ending the suffering of loved ones.

But I also don't think governments actively engaging in eugenics and genocide of their own populations for the sake of economic profits can be trusted.

This includes the UK and US.

Our medical system profits more from prolonging people's lives regardless of their pain and suffering.

I am unclear how personal decisions by the patients and their families would become a government issue.

[Mathilda]

I'm completely torn on the issue. I firmly believe in body autonomy. I believe people should be allowed to end their lives. And if they're unable to do it themselves then others should not be criminalised for ending the suffering of loved ones.

But I also don't think governments actively engaging in eugenics and genocide of their own populations for the sake of economic profits can be trusted.

This includes the UK and US.

Our medical system profits more from prolonging people's lives regardless of their pain and suffering.

I am unclear how personal decisions by the patients and their families would become a government issue.

Tell that to pregnant people being denied an abortion or to trans people being denied gender affirming health care solely due to their government's political ideology. Even though the health care is life saving. Or tell that to patients being denied access to cannabis to control symptoms of their incurable disease.

[Alan V]

Our medical system profits more from prolonging people's lives regardless of their pain and suffering.

I am unclear how personal decisions by the patients and their families would become a government issue.

Tell that to pregnant people being denied an abortion or to trans people being denied gender affirming health care solely due to their government's political ideology. Even though the health care is life saving. Or tell that to patients being denied access to cannabis to control symptoms of their incurable disease.

In the context of assisted suicides, I am unclear how the government is involved other than by allowing people to make their own decisions (or not).  

I believe your argument above was that governments would profit and therefore couldn't be trusted if they allowed assisted suicides.  I don't see how they would profit.

[Mathilda]

Tell that to pregnant people being denied an abortion or to trans people being denied gender affirming health care solely due to their government's political ideology. Even though the health care is life saving. Or tell that to patients being denied access to cannabis to control symptoms of their incurable disease.

In the context of assisted suicides, I am unclear how the government is involved other than by allowing people to make their own decisions (or not).  

I believe your argument above was that governments would profit and therefore couldn't be trusted if they allowed assisted suicides.  I don't see how they would profit.

Fair enough.

Our democracies are a sham because many western governments primarily serve corporate interests. If you live in a two party system then corporations will fund whichever party is likely to win. The game is rigged.

So our governments shape society to provide a young and fertile work force that can be easily exploited for economic gain. If you're old, terminally ill, disabled or infertile then you are considered less productive and a drain on resources. This is the nature of fascism.

[Alan V]

In the context of assisted suicides, I am unclear how the government is involved other than by allowing people to make their own decisions (or not).  

I believe your argument above was that governments would profit and therefore couldn't be trusted if they allowed assisted suicides.  I don't see how they would profit.

Fair enough.

Our democracies are a sham because many western governments primarily serve corporate interests. If you live in a two party system then corporations will fund whichever party is likely to win. The game is rigged.

So our governments shape society to be provide a young and fertile work force that can be easily exploited for economic gain. If you're old, terminally ill, disabled or infertile then you are considered less productive and a drain on resources. This is the nature of fascism.

Corporations employ most people, so of course governments are going to promote their interests for the sake of the economy.  It makes sense that in the U.S. the gun industries support Republicans and the alternative energy industries support Democrats.  Other kinds of corporations can profit no matter who wins. However, I certainly agree that too much money distorts democracies and leads to oligarchies of various sorts, so I believe such things should be better regulated.

I think that what you are saying is that governments have to pay for prolonged care through Medicare or other such programs, so they would be incentivized to promote assisted suicides to cut their expenses.  That would certainly be another potential problem to be safeguarded against.

[brewerb]

Fear mongering, thanks Steve.

[Paleophyte]

I'm completely torn on the issue. I firmly believe in body autonomy. I believe people should be allowed to end their lives. And if they're unable to do it themselves then others should not be criminalised for ending the suffering of loved ones.

But I also don't think governments actively engaging in eugenics and genocide of their own populations for the sake of economic profits can be trusted.

This includes the UK and US.

I agree with both of your points. That's why the second one that you bring up is precisely what we've avoided here in Canada. And in any sane country. Our Medical Assistance In Dying system doesn't do anything other than legally permit the option. You get to choose how and when you end and the government has no say in it whatsoever. The rules have been written so that it only applies to people who have "a grievous and irremediable medical condition". For reference, in 2023 Assisted Dying accounted for 15,343 deaths in Canada out of a total of 330,380 deaths in a total population of about 40.1 million. That's about 4.6% of the death rate and those are people who are already dying.

This isn't eugenics or genocide and I'm not seeing anybody making any money off of it. If anything, they're losing some small amount by not keeping us paying to be kept alive and suffering.

[SteveII]

 Withholding life-sustaining treatment is something entirely different and has long been held to be ethical when there is no hope of recovery.

How do you defend the act of purposefully starving someone to death, but not poisoning them? The end result is the same and both a product of a conscious choice from the caretaker. Note that witholding care causing death is considered murder in the same vein than actively killing. Not feeding a baby until it dies is no different than cracking their skull open with a hammer as far as the law is concerned. One could even say that former is worst for you can't pretend it was under the influence of a strong emotion, a moment of madness or something like that.

Feeding someone is not "treatment", it is a basic need like air and water. It would be unethical in any jurisdiction to stop feeding a patient. If you take the case of a comatose patient who depends on a feeding tube, it is other factors that will decide if removing the feeding tube is appropriate. In other words, it is incidental to the condition and not a factor in the treatment of the actual problem.

[epronovost]

How do you defend the act of purposefully starving someone to death, but not poisoning them? The end result is the same and both a product of a conscious choice from the caretaker. Note that witholding care causing death is considered murder in the same vein than actively killing. Not feeding a baby until it dies is no different than cracking their skull open with a hammer as far as the law is concerned. One could even say that former is worst for you can't pretend it was under the influence of a strong emotion, a moment of madness or something like that.

Feeding someone is not "treatment", it is a basic need like air and water. It would be unethical in any jurisdiction to stop feeding a patient. If you take the case of a comatose patient who depends on a feeding tube, it is other factors that will decide if removing the feeding tube is appropriate. In other words, it is incidental to the condition and not a factor in the treatment of the actual problem.

But you already can withold treatment of a patient leading to their death; that's legal everywhere in the world. Feeding a patient and a giving them water is an essential part of any treatment since "treatment" implies taking care of an illness of some sort or some health problem. Having nutriments and water is essential to the healing process of the body. You can't heal without it. Also, in the case of a comatose patient, it's the very fact that they are comatose that will lead to their death by starvation.