(This statement of purpose was drafted by James Park in the middle of 2006.
It was revised and posted on the Internet in October 2006.
And it will be revised as needed
to include other things that the Safeguards Group is actually doing.
Revised November 24, 2006; January 3, 2007; May 26, 2007; August 22, 2007; February 12, 2010)

SUMMARY:

    This Safeguards Group is an electronic discussion group.
All advocates of the right-to-die are invited to join.
This includes thinkers from anywhere in the world.
If this electronic discussion proves meaningful, others will join later.
We would examine the pros and cons
of each safeguard proposed for any state law in the USA
regarding the right-to-die
or any law used or proposed for any other country.

---

    This Safeguards Group
will not attempt to create safeguards
for right-to-die laws that should apply in every state.
The Supreme Court likes to refer to the "laboratory of the states",
where different laws will be enacted and tested
in the diverse states that make up these United States.
The Supreme Court did not find a right-to-die in the Constitution.
But it also did not find a prohibition of the right-to-die.
Thus, the individual states of the USA have the power to create
their own state laws regarding the right-to-die.
And other countries of the world
also have the power to create
their own laws concerning the right-to-die.
Anyone who drafts a new law
can include whatever safeguards seem meaningful and useful.

    A few decades into the 21st century,
the diverse states of the USA might converge on similar safeguards
so that uniform state laws might emerge eventually.
But this will only be possible
if some states go ahead to enact right-to-die laws
which are then tried in those states
—in their hospitals, hospices, & homes.
After a few actual court cases have been tried under new laws,
we all will know how well the specific safeguards
embodied in those laws have worked in practice.

    This is a SAFEGUARDS GROUP
rather than a LEGISLATION GROUP
because I believe that safeguards are the core of our problems
in getting the right-to-die accepted by the public
and legislation passed by state legislatures, etc.

    This does not mean that we cannot discuss other parts of proposed laws,
but I think we should focus on the SAFEGUARDS first.
Let's see what right-to-die advocates are thinking all across the USA.
And what do right-to-die advocates in other countries
think about any proposed safeguards?

---

BACKGROUND OF THE NEED FOR BETTER SAFEGUARDS

    Right-to-die legislation has recently been defeated
in the following states: California, Michigan, Maine, Wyoming, Vermont, & Hawaii.
Earlier defeats were experienced in Washington state (1991) and California (1992).
In the United Kingdom, the Parliament has repeatedly turned down
proposed legislation to empower the right-to-die:
1936, 1950, 1969, 1985, 1991, & 1994.

    Why has this happened when the majority of people
now seem to favor the right-to-die in some form?

    The answer is simple (and complex): Not Enough Votes.

    And there were not enough votes because a few people in the middle
ultimately voted against liberalizing the laws.

    Hypothesis: These swing votes among legislators everywhere
could have been swung the other way
if there had been better safeguards in the proposed laws.

    If this hypothesis is substantially correct,
we are going to have to propose more and better safeguards
in order to win at least some of the people in the middle.

    We might not be entirely pleased with the safeguards.
But we should create safeguards that we can at least tolerate.
If we create the safeguards ourselves,
we are likely to create ways of preventing premature deaths
that are more workable
than if we left it to the opposition to create safeguards.
We know that there are people who are
unalterable opposed to any form of the right-to-die.
(Perhaps they make up 20-30% of any given population.)
And the 'safeguards' they propose are more likely to look like roadblocks.
The die-hard opponents of the right-to-die
want to make it nearly impossible to choose death.

    To extend this analogy,
safeguards are like the guard-rails at the sides of mountain roads
that prevent cars from falling off.
The guard-rails make every trip along that road safer.
But a road-block prevents any car from proceeding along that road.
Opponents of the right-to-die want to stop all chosen deaths,
no matter how wise, helpful, rational, well-planned,
& admirable some deaths might be.
A road-block prevents anyone from choosing that pathway towards death.
Those who erect road-blocks believe
that the road is too dangerous for anyone to travel.
But if there are good guard-rails,
some of those worriers will be won over
to the view that the mountain road can be traveled safely.

    (Some of the same people keep proposing 'safeguards' for abortion,
which are really intended to 'save' as many fetuses as possible.
Their 'safeguards' are more like road-blocks than guard-rails.
At the other end of the political spectrum,
people who oppose nuclear power propose 'safeguards'
that would ultimate cause all nuclear power plants to shut down.
Such 'safeguards' are also more like road-blocks than guard-rails.)

    What we need are reasonable and workable safeguards
that can be accepted by the majority of people who must vote
on any proposed changes in law regarding the right-to-die.

    Therefore, whatever legislation we propose,
we must include stronger safeguards than in the past.
Otherwise the proposed legislation
will be defeated by opponents of the right-to-die
when they raise doubts about the likely (or unlikely) abuses and mistakes
that might take place under the new laws with weak safeguards.

---

RESEARCH QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE DISCUSSED
BY OUR SAFEGUARDS GROUP

    What specific safeguards were proposed in the legislative attempts now failed?
What could make these safeguards stronger and more credible?
Safeguards for life-ending decisions must always be both workable and effective.  

    What  specific fears do the opponents raise?
What specific safeguards can we create
that will overcome the doubts and worries raised by the opposition?
(We cannot hope to win over the 20% who are unalterably opposed to the right-to-die.
But if we can create safeguards
that do genuinely address all rational concerns
and attempt to answer all reasonable objections raised,
then we can hope to win some people in the middle.)

    Probably we cannot create one simple set of safeguards.
There will probably have to be a system of interlocking safeguards.
For example, when the patient is no longer conscious and capable,
what kinds of prior documentation of his or her wishes
should be allowed to express his or her settled values?
Are we content to lose our right-to-die if we get Alzheimer's disease?

    There might be 30 or 40 different proposed safeguards.
Which of these are clearly absurd?  
For example, no one would propose that all Catholics
must get the personal approval of the Pope
before they can exercise their right-to-die.
At the other extreme, no one would propose
that death be granted instantly on demand.

    How many different, independent judgments are needed
to assure that dying at this time and by this means is the wisest course?
How do we keep strangers out of the loop as much as possible?
How do we officially empower proxies
to make life-ending decisions for the patients who appointed them?

    Some safeguards might address the worries raised by specific groups.
For example, we have not yet won many disabled people to our side.
They fear that the right-to-die will become the duty-to-die
—applied first to people who are disabled
because able-bodied people cannot imagine themselves
wanting to live with such limitations.
Perhaps in consultation with disability groups,
we can create workable safeguards
designed to prevent even the appearance or possibility
of disabled people from being coerced into 'choosing' death.

    (I do not believe that disabled people really have anything to fear,
but we nevertheless need to create safeguards
that will convince the disabled
that the right-to-die will not be misused against them.)

    Likewise, some safeguards might address the worries raised by groups
which are working to prevent suicide.
Actually we are also opposed to irrational suicide.
So some of our proposed safeguards could be directed specifically toward
preventing misuse of the philosophy and methods
of the right-to-die movement to commit irrational suicide.

    [Here is an essay distinguishing the familiar concept of irrational suicide
from the new concept of voluntary death:
"Four Differences between Irrational Suicide and Voluntary Death":
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/CY-IS-VD.html ]

    People who have followed public and legislative debate
about the specific safeguards proposed for legislation which has now failed
can remind us (in our Safeguards Group)
just what the opposition said about each of the proposed safeguards.
How could the proposed safeguards have been improved
so as to meet at least the most valid of the worries of the opposition?

    Here is a beginning list of the worries of the opposition,
each linked to the safeguards
most likely to prevent those possible abuses and mistakes:
"A CATALOG OF
WORRIES, PROBLEMS, DANGERS, PERILS, ABUSES, & MISTAKES
POSSIBLE UNDER ANY SYSTEM PERMITTING CHOSEN DEATH":
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-ABUSE.html

    Right-to-die advocates who were deeply involved in state debates
should give our Safeguards Group detailed information
about what the opposition said in their states.

    What distortions of our position were common in media advertising?
Can we create safeguards that cannot be distorted by the opposition?
Legislators are usually reasonable people.
They are not easily misled by the rhetoric of one side or the other.
But the exact words of the proposed legislation
must seem reasonable and workable to the legislators
who will vote for or against any proposed law.

    As you can see from this beginning list of issues,
our Safeguards Group will have lots of themes to discuss.
And because safeguards must ultimately be put into English words in laws,
this electronic discussion group should be a good way to examine
any proposed safeguards word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence.

    And even before any specific safeguard is embodied in a state law,
it can be tried by any program designed to help patients at the end of life.
Which safeguards are useful even in hospice-like settings,
where more passive means of choosing death are common?

    As our Safeguards Group begins to operate
and as new people join our discussion,
we will probably expand our mandate as outlined here.
What additional issues should this Safeguards Group discuss?