Undue risk in assisted dying and letting die?

A Defence of Assisted Dying

In ethics there is an important distinction between killing and letting die. Supposedly deliberately killing humans should almost always be ruled out, while letting them die is very often permissible. Catholics in particular take the deliberate taking of life as always out of the question. Yet in the debate on assisted dying most social conservatives have kept quiet about this alleged sanctity of life, instead they’ve focused on the safeguards being too weak allowing for pressure, coercion and the feeling of being a burden to unduly dictate peoples’ choices, leading, in some cases, to wrongful killings.

Their argument is implausible because every argument concerning safeguards not being strong enough for euthanasia apply just as much to safeguards on turning off life support machines or putting in place ‘do not resuscitate orders’. Unless social conservatives are going to be against letting people die then they should ditch opposition to Leadbeater’s bill on the grounds the safeguards are inadequate and instead focus on the sanctity of life proper. Although a few conservative organisations such as Right to Life do this to a limited extent, most don’t, because on this issue at least, the British public are liberals.

In some instances, the moral distinction between killing and letting die is next to nothing. If I have paid a carer to feed me and she poisons me over two weeks until I die she wrongfully kills me almost as much as if I have paid her to feed me but she knowingly lets me starve to death over two weeks instead. Similarly, when a doctor pushes a button which painlessly gasses me to death without my consent, he wrongful kills almost as much as the doctor who deliberately turning off the oxygen pump which is keeping me alive leads to my death. The commonality between the two pairs of cases is the duty to not kill is or almost is on a moral par to the duty to not let die arrived at via free contract.

Having established this near parity, we can look at the social conservative case against the Leadbeater bill put by the likes of Danny Kruger and Fleur Elizabeth Meston. Essentially, the argument boils down to the risk of an unvoluntary choice arising via coercion, pressure from others, or, the sense of being a burden on others, is too large, hence, all assisted dying must be prohibited to stop any wrongful killings. The problem with this argument is the people who say they’d like to be left to die via their life support machine being unplugged, or, ‘don’t resuscitate orders’ being placed on their bed, could also be being subject to coercion, pressure from other, or, feeling they are a burden on others, meaning, their demise would amount to wrongful letting die; the moral equivalent of a wrongful killing. Thus, should we permit the risk of wrongful letting dies we must also permit the risk of wrongful killings too.

Should we let people die though and risk wrongly letting them die? Imprisoning people in their own flesh and forcing them to live in agony is clearly wrong. It violates their individual rights which enable each person to live their own life in their own way. Certainly, we’d not accept a private citizen force feeding a sick person to keep them alive to stop the chance of a wrongful letting die; so, the state being no different, shouldn’t keep people on life support machines to stop the chance of a wrongful letting die either. The kicker again being: The state should not prohibit assisted dying to stop the risk of wrongful killing given they shouldn’t keep people alive to stop wrongful letting dies of a moral equivalence.

I suspect social conservatives will reply that killing is much worse than the letting die of the sort I have mentioned. Although killing is worse than letting die in the cases I have presented it is not much worse. The fundamental wrong is life is unconsensually taken in the two pairs of cases I have mentioned. Social conservatives though don’t see this as the main problem. To them life is of a sacred value, hence, along with opposing assisted dying they oppose abortion and the death penalty too. I imagine the thoughtful people in opposition to we liberals know this, but they carry on not mentioning ideas of the sanctity of life for fear of being seen to be out of touch with the public.

Another reply maybe we can’t keep old people alive on life support machines forever due to the huge cost, thus, we need to let them die even if there is a risk there will end up being wrongful letting dies. This would be to concede though there is an amount of money which can be saved which warranted allowing a process with the chance of a wrongful death on the other end; an argument which could perhaps be made for assisted suicide too. But when you get people saying even one wrongful death would be one too many, you know opponents of assisted dying will not admit there is an amount of money saved which warrants risking a wrongful death.

Respect for people requires they be free of meddling politicians who want to get in the way of their peaceful exit from this world. The risk that wrongful killing occurring is always too high to ever allow assisted dying is implausible, requiring as it would the prohibiting of letting die in medical settings too to stop the moral near equivalence of wrongful deaths. Given social conservatives aren’t going to bite the bullet of prohibiting letting die, but will still oppose assisted dying, they need to state their real position: Life is sacred, a leasehold from God, and, that means individuals should not be allowed the freedom to choose death. Questionable at best.