The Dread Slender Gnome on Nostr: An editorial in Spiked is arguing that legalising assisted dying should not happen ...
An editorial in Spiked is arguing that legalising assisted dying should not happen not just because of the practical problems, but because it's inherently immoral. But the arguments they use are decidedly flawed. Emphasis mine.
It effectively creates two categories of citizen: those whose suicide we should all try desperately, collectively, to stop; and those whose suicide we should both allow and actively assist.
To legalise assisted suicide is to accept the grim conclusion that taking one’s life is not only an acceptable, but even supportable, response to suffering.
More importantly, to present the destruction of the self as an expression of freedom is perverse. Death is the end of all freedom, autonomy, subjectivity. Just as John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that there is no right to sell yourself into slavery, there is surely no ‘right’ to request a state-assisted death. As Mill put it: ‘The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free.’ Or to exist, we might add.
Ergo: assisted suicide is morally wrong. But if that logic is extended to its full conclusions, then if in cases of suspected suicide, DNR orders should not be respected either. If suicide must be opposed, resisted and prevented in ALL cases, and people must not be helped to end their own lives ever, then also, people must not be allowed to prevent anyone from stopping their suicide either. Ergo: in suspected suicides, DNR orders must not be observed.
The second issue I have with their arguments is a familiar one, and rather than being an issue with their logic, it's an issue with the stance itself.
Because, as humanists, we think human life is to be celebrated – and that no life is ‘not worth living’ by dint of illness and suffering.
This is possibly the most common argument against suicide, assisted or not. And if that's someone's personal opinion, fine, whatever. But if that is taken as a stance meant to guide policy, then in practice means deciding a priori on behalf of other people, no matter what their suffering, that their life is "worth living". In all circumstances. And frankly, the phrasing "by dint of illness and suffering" suggests they view suffering as not more than a very uncomfortable inconvenience. As the editorial makes it clear, to them, suicide is in ALL cases the wrong outcome or decision.
I am of course biased, as I'm firmly of the opinion that each person must have the right to decide for themselves whether their life is worth living or not. That of course doesn't mean I'm against attempts to persuade people that their life is worth continuing, it merely means that the ultimate decision must lie within the individual themselves. The Spiked position on the other hand, fundamentally boils down to "you must suffer, because to end your suffering is immoral". In other words, "you owe it to us/society/god/morality to suffer".
And as said above, I would like to ask Spiked staff if they indeed believe that DNR orders should be disregarded in definite or suspected cases of suicide, because that is the logical consequence of their stance.
Link to the article https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/28/the-moral-case-against-assisted-dying/
It effectively creates two categories of citizen: those whose suicide we should all try desperately, collectively, to stop; and those whose suicide we should both allow and actively assist.
To legalise assisted suicide is to accept the grim conclusion that taking one’s life is not only an acceptable, but even supportable, response to suffering.
More importantly, to present the destruction of the self as an expression of freedom is perverse. Death is the end of all freedom, autonomy, subjectivity. Just as John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that there is no right to sell yourself into slavery, there is surely no ‘right’ to request a state-assisted death. As Mill put it: ‘The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free.’ Or to exist, we might add.
Ergo: assisted suicide is morally wrong. But if that logic is extended to its full conclusions, then if in cases of suspected suicide, DNR orders should not be respected either. If suicide must be opposed, resisted and prevented in ALL cases, and people must not be helped to end their own lives ever, then also, people must not be allowed to prevent anyone from stopping their suicide either. Ergo: in suspected suicides, DNR orders must not be observed.
The second issue I have with their arguments is a familiar one, and rather than being an issue with their logic, it's an issue with the stance itself.
Because, as humanists, we think human life is to be celebrated – and that no life is ‘not worth living’ by dint of illness and suffering.
This is possibly the most common argument against suicide, assisted or not. And if that's someone's personal opinion, fine, whatever. But if that is taken as a stance meant to guide policy, then in practice means deciding a priori on behalf of other people, no matter what their suffering, that their life is "worth living". In all circumstances. And frankly, the phrasing "by dint of illness and suffering" suggests they view suffering as not more than a very uncomfortable inconvenience. As the editorial makes it clear, to them, suicide is in ALL cases the wrong outcome or decision.
I am of course biased, as I'm firmly of the opinion that each person must have the right to decide for themselves whether their life is worth living or not. That of course doesn't mean I'm against attempts to persuade people that their life is worth continuing, it merely means that the ultimate decision must lie within the individual themselves. The Spiked position on the other hand, fundamentally boils down to "you must suffer, because to end your suffering is immoral". In other words, "you owe it to us/society/god/morality to suffer".
And as said above, I would like to ask Spiked staff if they indeed believe that DNR orders should be disregarded in definite or suspected cases of suicide, because that is the logical consequence of their stance.
Link to the article https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/28/the-moral-case-against-assisted-dying/