Advantages
of the Premature-Death Approach to the Right-to-Die
Creates
Common
Ground with
Former Opponents of the Right-to-Die
Opponents of the right-to-die reject the perceived
practice
because they worry that abuses
and mistakes will
occur,
which will result in some patients being put to death without good
reason.
These worries by the opposition are explored in great detail in
A
CATALOG OF WORRIES, PROBLEMS,
DANGERS, PERILS, ABUSES, & MISTAKES
POSSIBLE UNDER ANY SYSTEM PERMITTING CHOSEN DEATH.
This
catalog explores over 10 different kinds of possible
abuses,
including such things as protecting patients from greedy relatives,
preventing teen suicides, controlling 'angels of death',
& preventing the devaluation of certain patients.
Each sort of potential problem
is linked with the specific safeguards
that would be most effective in preventing that abuse.
When each proposed safeguard is examined in detail,
it becomes evident that the fundamental purpose of that safeguard
is to prevent premature
deaths.
And this is also the goal of the opposition,
to prevent what they call "physician-assisted
suicide" and "euthanasia".
These problematic expressions are discussed at length at the above
links.
And some more neutral expressions are offered:
"physician aid-in-dying"
and "gentle death".
People who oppose the so-called "right-to-die"
worry that vulnerable patients will be put to death without
authorization.
And they believe that the best
way to prevent such abuses
is to resist any attempt
to change the laws.
But when the laws are changed in such a way
as to define the new crime
of causing premature death,
then the worries of the opposition are embodied in the new laws.
Such laws explicitly define and punish any behavior
that would result in the death of a patient
without exploring all the other options first.
The safeguards embodied in laws against causing
premature death
offer easy-to-understand methods for separating
life-ending decisions that would result in premature death
from life-ending decisions that would result in death at the best time.
Each side of the right-to-die debate has sometimes
demonized the other.
But if everyone concerned about deciding the best time to die
were to cooperate in creating new laws against causing premature death,
we could probably make laws that both sides can embrace.
This is the common ground:
We all want to prevent
patients from dying too soon.
There are many ways in which patients might be hustled into death.
And the explicit safeguards in any laws against causing premature death
would describe specific methods by which such abuses will be avoided.
And in those rare cases when life-ending decisions
were improperly made,
the laws against causing premature death will punish the offenders
by putting them into prison for significant periods of time.
These potential punishments will be well known
to everyone in the health-care professions.
Just as they now worry about malpractice suits if they make mistakes,
they will then have to worry about criminal prosecution
if they participate in
decisions that cause any patient to die
prematurely.
Likewise, laypersons who might be tempted to 'pull
the plug' too soon
will know that they could be charged with causing premature death
if their reasons for wanting the patient dead
do not correspond with the best interests of the patient.
Let the creative dialog begin.
The old laws against murder are very blunt instruments
when applied to complicated bedside decisions for dying patients.
So we do need new laws specifically addressing
the abuses and mistakes that can take
place in the medical context.
In the recent past, when relatives have been charged
with 'mercy killing',
they have often been acquited
by juries that were sympathetic to their
plight.
The family members often were completely motivated
by compassion for the suffering of the dying relative.
But because there were no established means for choosing a wise death,
they took death into their own hands.
When new laws are created to define and punish
causing premature death,
'mercy killings' will almost completely become a practice of the past.
Laypeople as well as heath-care professionals
will know exactly what safeguards they should use
to make sure that they are
proceeding toward a wise and ethical
decision for death.
In many case, the safeguards themselves will tell the relatives to go
slow,
trying alternative approaches before they finally decide
that death now is
better than death later.
Created March 30,
2007; revised 3-31-2007; 2-1-2008; 2-28-2008