Why euthanasia must be legalized

Jesse Wilson explains why Rafal Symanski’s arguments against legalizing euthanasia are based on flawed assumptions.

Sometimes I read a newspaper story that is one sided, poorly written, and incorrect. However, this time I was shocked to find I was reading The Baron and not a Brunswick News offering. Rafal Syzmanski’s “objective information” and “perspective” on euthanasia could not be any less objective or offer less perspective if it had been a pamphlet written by the Pope himself (see: When is killing not killing?, pg. 7, issue 7, January 12^th 2010).

Amongst the polemical statements, misinformation and logical fallacies one statement was particularly galling. “The potential for abuse (whether through coercion or simply misdirection) is quite scary.” The situation that creates the potential for abuse Rafal is referring to is freedom from prosecution for those discussing euthanasia with patients and presumably also those performing euthanasia.

The abuse alluded to would be coercing or tricking patients into agreeing to euthanasia when they do not really want to end their life. Mr. Syzmanski tosses that bomb out without any further “perspective”. No supporting arguments either before or after it is raised. What Rafal did not appear to realize that his closing argument is a contentious and much debated premise regarding euthanasia. It cannot simply be asserted as if it closes the issue.

The premise that legalized euthanasia can lead to abuse and therefore euthanasia should not be allowed is based on three assumptions that Mr. Syzmanski neither mentions nor supports. First, it is assumed that patients will be coerced and that coercion will result in patients unwillingly undergoing euthanasia. Second, that coerced requests for euthanasia are invalid. Finally, it is assumed that the harm done by coerced euthanasia procedures outweighs the benefits of allowing truly voluntary euthanasia.

The first assumption is more of a factual issue rather than a values issue. However, in the case of euthanasia in Canada it is still hypothetical. It is possible to observe the countries that have legalized euthanasia (which Mr. Syzmanski also failed to mention) and see what the consequences of their laws are. Examining Holland, the Netherlands, Luxemburg or Switzerland might not entirely capture the Canadian experience. While all Western European in influence, all are unique. Canadians might be more or less likely to pressure their patients or loved ones to accept euthanasia and our terminally ill persons might be more or less likely to give in to that pressure. In either case, coercion or its effectiveness cannot merely be assumed.

Furthermore, if abuse is a factual reality the solution to that abuse is not automatically the prohibiting of euthanasia. In the even that abuse could not be stemmed by stricter regulation or stricter enforcement of the regulations then criminalizing euthanasia may be the best option, provided it does a better job at preventing coerced euthanasia procedures than better regulation or oversight.

The second assumption is less contentious, but still merits discussion. Suppose a terminally ill patient did not want to die yet and was willing to accept the terrible suffering of her disease as a consequence of that briefly continued life. However, watching her death would cause great emotional hardship on friends and family. Overcome with guilt because of the burden she has become the patient requests euthanasia.

Some would consider that a noble sacrifice, relieving the trauma a horrible death would leave on the survivors. Others would be appalled; believing that so long as the individual considers her life worth living then that life is sacrosanct. Some might even go so far as to consider all life sacrosanct and reject the idea of ending it for any reason.

This is a debate about values that is clear, and worth having. However, it is beside the point. Euthanasia is supposed to be about the relief of suffering caused by a terminal disease state, not guilt or other emotional issues. So this sort of thing would not qualify under medical euthanasia, but the debate over whether this is a noble death is unresolved.

The final assumption also makes a choice about values, and a presumptuous one it is. In fact, it silences a whole side of the issue. It may be true that allowing euthanasia might harm some people by causing their lives to end sooner than they would freely agree to. However, it is not merely a plausible hypothesis but a fact that prohibiting euthanasia harms others by forcing them to suffer longer than they would freely choose.

Some people in Canada want to be euthanized. Presently they are denied. If it were allowed some people might be killed who do not want to be killed. Supposing the “scary potential for abuse” were actual rather than potential one would have to weigh these opposing values. Which is worse, allowing some to suffer when they do not want to or the coerced suicides of others? Is even one wrong death so serious as to warrant the torture of hundreds of others? Or do the sizes of the respective groups matter? Is one false euthanasia too many out of ten? A hundred? A thousand? It is a fact that the rights of some conflict with the rights of others. Which ought to take precedent? To have an honest discussion about the real costs and benefits of euthanasia these questions need to be addressed.

Speaking of honesty, one other fallacy bugged me, that being the naturalistic fallacy. Mr. Szymanski states “Natural death is… a part of what it is to be a mortal human being. Speeding up the process through injection or starvation is not a natural death.” Apart from the fact that starvation is a natural process and that patients have the right to refuse any medical treatment, including nutrition, this argument is still foolish because it equates “natural” with “good”.

Pneumonia is natural, antibiotics are not. Death by cancer is often natural, chemotherapy and radiation definitely are not. Rafal wants to say lethal injection is wrong because it is unnatural (which has shades of a theological objection to interfering in “God’s plan”), but pretty much every medical intervention is, by definition, unnatural and in most cases only necessary because something natural tried to kill the patient first. No one objects to all of this unnatural intervention, Christian Scientists excepted. If you want to say medicine is good because it saves people and killing is bad because it kills people, then do so. It may be simple, but at least it’s honest. It might even be right.

Jesse Wilson is a volunteer writer, the last angry stoic and a radical moderate.