Advantages
of the Premature-Death Approach to the Right-to-Die
Encourages
Advocates of the Right-to-Die
to Embrace the Safeguards
When confronted with a list of safeguards that must
be fulfilled,
many advocates of the right-to-die regard them as a necessary
bureaucratic obstacle-course.
We will fulfill the safeguards if we are required to do so,
but we would really prefer to get on with the planned death.
However, when safeguards are embodied in a law
against causing premature death,
then the advocates of the right-to-die find themselves on the other
side:
Instead of doing as little
as possible
and still being able to claim that safeguards have been observed,
the advocates of the right-to-die will embrace the safeguards
and try to fulfill them as
completely and carefully as possible
—because
the safeguards are the stay-out-of-jail
card
for all who help others to choose a wise and timely death.
People who advise, encourage, and/or assist others
to commit irrational suicide
are subject to prosecution for this crime that harms the victim of
irrational suicide.
People killing themselves for foolish 'reasons'
will remain a problem into the foreseeable future.
And anyone who aids and abets such self-harming should go to prison:
(1) as a punishment for causing irreparable harm to another person,
(2) as a way of helping the person who assisted an irrational suicide
to re-think the process that led to helping in an irrational
self-killing, and
(3) as a way of protecting the public
from any such further outrages against public morality.
These are the reasons we should keep laws
against assisting suicide on the books.
But at the same time,
we ought to permit reasonable people to choose wise terminal care,
which should always include the possibility of shortening the process of dying
once it becomes clear that there will be no recovery for this patient.
When laws against causing premature death are
written,
they will include explicit, written safeguards,
which can be used in any defence against the charge of causing a
premature death.
Judges will not be able to exclude relevant safeguards
(as they have in the past)
by claiming that the wishes of the patient were not relevant
and the medical condition of the patient as certified by the doctors
does not matter because the charge is attempted murder.
Anyone who participates in a discussion
that might lead to a life-ending decision
will know by means of the new law
just what safeguards should be applied
as a means of separating the crime
of causing a premature death
from the benefit to the
patient of granting permission for a voluntary death
or giving the means for
achieving a merciful death.
If I am ever in the position of advising or helping
another person to die,
then I will have to think
about my own liberty in everything I do.
I have no wish to spend even one hour in jail.
And I can avoid even the suggestion that I ought to go to jail
by fulfilling safeguards that are designed specifically
to separate the illegal act
of assisting an irrational suicide
from the legal and
commendable act
of helping someone to choose
a wise and timely death.
In short, it will be in my best interest
to do the best possible job of fulfilling
as many safeguards as might be relevant
for showing that this was a wisely-decided death
—not
an irrational suicide by any stretch of the imagination.
Then any prosector who gives even a brief glance at the fulfilled
safeguards
will immediately decide that there
is no case:
No crime was committed.
And no jury would ever
convict
if the jury were allowed to see the safeguards
that were fulfilled in the process of making
the terminal-care decisions for this patient.
The law against causing premature death
will leave no doubts about what safeguards are relevant.
I may choose among, say, 26 different safeguards,
selecting the ones that will
make my case the best:
Proving beyond any reasonable doubt that this death was wisely chosen.
The more safeguards I fulfill—and
the better I fulfill them—
the stronger will be my case
that I am not guilty of
causing a premature death.
In short, my attitude toward the safeguards shifts
from seeing them as a
necessary nuisance
to seeing them as a way of
keep myself out of jail.
I will embrace the safeguards as the way to prove to all who look at
the facts
that no harm was done
to the patient
and in fact that a great
benefit was given to the patient
when the meaningless suffering was shorted as much as reasonable.
The reluctant
fulfiller of safeguards will often take short-cuts,
just to fulfill the minimum requirements of the law.
But the fulfiller of safeguards
who is thinking of keeping himself or herself out of jail
by means of proving that all reasonable safeguards were observed
will do the very best
possible job of using the safeguards.
The safeguards are written for the purpose
of separating irrational
suicides and premature deaths
from deaths that are wisely
chosen
by several persons who have examined all of the facts and opinions.
When safeguards are used to the best advantage,
dozens of people will
be involved in making the life-ending decisions.
And, thus, there will be much less chance
of any abuses and mistakes slipping by.
In the vast majority of cases,
the very process of fulfilling over 20 safeguards
will be obvious proof that no premature death took place.
And if there is ever any legal doubt about the wisdom of a chosen death,
then the written death-planning record
will become the primary evidence for the defense.
And if the safeguards have been superbly completed and fulfilled,
then the jury will be overwhelmed by the testimony
of dozens of people who independently examined
all the facts and professional opinions
that had any relevance to the life-ending decision.
Dozens of witnesses will already be on record
as approving the decision in this specific case
that death now was
obvious better than death
later.
Created
2-28-2008; Revised