IF WE PERMIT HELPFUL DEATHS,
HARMFUL DEATHS WILL FOLLOW

    When the idea of voluntary death is first presented,
suicide is the first idea that appears in the minds of most people.
Several minutes of explanations or several paragraphs of writing
are required to convince the listener or the reader
that it might be possible to permit voluntary death
while at the same time discouraging irrational suicide.

    Here are the four basic differences:

1. Irrational suicide harms the victim.
Voluntary death benefits the patient.

2. Irrational suicide is not based on reason.
Voluntary death is based on reason.

3. Irrational suicide is often capricious.
Voluntary death is well-planned.

4. Irrational suicide is regrettable and lamentable.
Voluntary death is admirable and laudable.

   
If you want to explore these concepts more completely, read:
"Four Differences between Irrational Suicide and Voluntary Death":
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/CY-IS-VD.html.

    The safeguards linked below constitute the operational methods
by which several other persons can participate
in examining the proposed death to see whether
it would be an irrational suicide or a voluntary death.

    Likewise, whenever the words "merciful death" appear,
the first image that comes into the minds
of the listener or the reader is mercy-killing.
Much explanation is required to convince the listener or the reader
that it might be possible to permit merciful deaths
while at the same time continuing to outlaw mercy-killing.

   Here are the same four basic differences:

1. Mercy-killing harms the victim.
Merciful death benefits the patient.

2.
Mercy-killing is not based on reason.
Merciful death is based on reason.

3.
Mercy-killing is often capricious.
Merciful death is well-planned.

4.
Mercy-killing is regrettable and lamentable.
Merciful death is admirable and laudable.

  
If you want to explore these concepts more completely, read:
"Four Differences between Mercy-Killing and Merciful Death":
http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Eparkx032/CY-MK-MD.html.

   
  The safeguards linked below constitute the operational methods
by which several other persons can participate
in examining the proposed death to see whether
it would be a mercy-killing (harmful criminal behavior)
or a merciful death (helpful compassionate behavior).

    This set of worries about the right-to-die
is traditionally called the "slippery-slope argument".
If we permit some forms of the right-to-die,
then we will begin slipping down a hill to disaster
without the possibility of stopping ourselves.
A chain of terrible consequences will follow
if we take even the first step down the slippery slope.

    If this were true,
that we could not prevent evil deaths
if we permit good deaths,
then (so the argument goes),
we should never take the first step onto the slippery slope:
We should not permit even obviously good deaths
because someone will distort the principles allowing beneficial deaths
so that harmful deaths will be inevitable.

    The safeguards are the sand that can be put on the icy sidewalk
so that it will be safe to walk down the hill.
As long as we have the safeguards preventing us from slipping out of control,
the trip down the icy sidewalk will be safe.
Wise safeguards carefully applied can
permit wise deaths and prevent foolish deaths.

    Changing the metaphor,
wise safeguards are the guard-rails on the mountain road
preventing cars from crashing off the road and down the cliff.
The slippery-slope argument would simply close the road
so that no car would be able to reach the desired destination.
Advocates of the slippery-slope argument
want to create roadblocks rather than guard-rails.



SAFEGUARDS TO DISCOURAGE IRRATIONAL SUICIDE AND MERCY-KILLING

    The following 17 safeguards call upon the considered opinions
of a wide variety of neutral persons who can help
to separate those deaths that would be harmful irrational suicides
from wise life-ending decisions that would create helpful voluntary deaths
and to separate those deaths that would be harmful mercy-killings
from wise life-ending decisions that would create helpful merciful deaths.

    These safeguards are arranged beginning with the most powerful and effective.
The blue title leads to a complete explanation of that safeguard.
The red comments explain how that safeguard deals with the specific problem
of how permitting wise life-ending decisions for some patients
might lead to foolish deaths for other people.


STATEMENTS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS

            AFFIRMING OR QUESTIONING THE CHOSEN DEATH

    Family members can usually be assumed
to be choosing in the best interests of the patient.
(If some family member has mixed motives, such as greed,
the other safeguards become more important.)
But when most family members agree
that death now would be better than death later,
this is reason to believe that the life-ending decisions
have been carefully and wisely made.
In their written statements,
family members show that they have considered the alternatives
and decided that voluntary death or merciful death is the best option.

STATEMENTS FROM ADVOCATES FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
             IF INVITED BY THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES

    When special advocates for disadvantaged groups have been appointed,
more distant observers (who do not know the details of the terminal care)
will be more likely to accept the choices
made by the persons who are making what might be life-ending decisions.
Each situation of terminal care is individual.
When an advocate for a disadvantaged group approves one merciful death,
it does not mean that the next proposed death will necessarily be a wise choice.
This special advocate is asked for a written opinion
explicitly for the purpose of preventing discrimination
on the basis of group membership.
There must be no slippery slope leading from one wise merciful death
for a member of a minority group to approving other deaths automatically.

PHYSICIAN'S STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

     A mercy-killer almost never asks for a written statement from a doctor.
When the terminal-care physician explains in writing
the medical condition and prognosis of the patient,
this is the factual basis for wise end-of-life decisions.
The very process of obtaining such a professional medical opinion
will prevent some premature deaths that would correctly be called "mercy-killings".
           
INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

    When an independent physician reaches the same conclusions,
this is further evidence supporting the decision
for a voluntary death or a merciful death.
This second professional opinion is another check
to make sure that no mistakes occur
because the physical condition of the patient was misunderstood.

HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE ENROLLMENT

    When a terminal patient is being cared for in a hospital or hospice,
several professionals and volunteers will be observing whatever happens.
Careful medical records will be kept of all decisions and procedures.
And the fact that everyone in this terminal-care situation approves one death
should not lead to the conclusion
that every patient will have his or her proposed death approved.
Both hospitals and hospice-programs are committed to life.
Only when meaningful life is no longer possible
will these groups of people approve a voluntary death or a merciful death.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATES
           THE PATIENT'S ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS

    When there is some reasonable doubt about the patient's decision-making capacity,
a psychological professional might be called upon to evaluate that patient.
This psychologist or psychiatrist should be capable of
separating the irrational urge to commit suicide
from any wise life-ending decisions.
And this professional's written statement
(which will not become public information)
should go some way toward convincing distant critics
that this life-ending decision was wisely chosen.

ADVANCE DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE

    An Advance Directive was probably created some years before death.
And it explains the patient's settled values concerning life and death.
The proxies appointed in the Advance Directive
are carrying forward the plans established by the patient.
Even if the patient has questionable abilities to decide
toward the end of his or her life,
the personal medical ethics contained in the Advance Directive
can be carried forward by everyone who reads that 'living will'.

REQUESTS FOR DEATH FROM THE PATIENT

    And if the patient is fully capable of making medical decisions,
then this is the strongest evidence that no slippery-slope was involved:
There was no general principle of putting all seriously-ill patients to death.
This death was explicitly requested in writing by this patient.

INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT

    When a specific plan for death is set forth,
the patient should be asked to approve or disapprove this plan.
Some modification might be required
before the patient will give informed consent.
But if and when the patient has given written, informed consent,
no stranger should claim that the patient was railroaded into death.

UNBEARABLE SUFFERING

    The patient who is suffering toward the end of his or her life
should be encouraged to explain this suffering
so that all of the other decision-makers
will understand the need for relief.

PALLIATIVE CARE TRIAL

    And several methods of relieving suffering should be tried
before the final decision is made
that voluntary death or merciful death is the best remaining option.
   
ETHICS COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE LIFE-ENDING DECISION

    Institutional ethics committees are created
for the purpose of giving impartial reviews to all medical decisions,
including those decisions that will lead to the patient's death.
The members of any ethics committee
should not be involved in the personal life of the patient.
But they should consult with the patient whenever possible
to make sure that the patient and/or the proxies
are making a wise decision
if they are choosing a voluntary death or a merciful death.
The fact of an ethics-committee review can be made public.
But the details of their deliberations should be kept private.

A MEMBER OF THE CLERGY APPROVES OR QUESTIONS THE CHOICE FOR DEATH

    Likewise, any member of the clergy who is asked to review a life-ending decision
need not share all of the details of his or her thinking with the general public.
But it will be reassuring to distant critics to know
that a members of the clergy was consulted
and did agree with the terminal-care plan.

RELIGIOUS OR OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLES
            APPLIED TO THIS LIFE-ENDING DECISION

    And even more explicitly, religious experts might apply their principles
to the end-of-life situation that presents itself.
These religious authorities might create a written document,
showing how the religious or moral principles
led to the decision they endorse.
(And in order to avoid public debate of private religious matters,
the specific contents any such documents should be kept private.)


REPORT TO THE PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE DEATH TAKES PLACE

    When the terminal care plans are reaching their conclusion,
the complete death-planing record (or a summary of it)
might be provided to the prosecuting authority.
If the prosecutor finds nothing that needs further explanation
and nothing that would lead to a criminal prosecution,
he or she can issue a statement to that effect.
And everyone can proceed with the plan for a voluntary death or a merciful death.
Since the prosecutor knows the applicable laws,
this will be the most decisive way to separate harmful criminal acts
from acts of mercy that clearly benefit the patient.
If the prosecutor approves of the plans for death in advance,
how could any critic claim that a harm was committed?


CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH

    But if the report to the prosecutor was incomplete or misleading,
the law still provides for penalties
if it can be shown that the death in question was premature.
And all people who might be tempted to commit a mercy-killing
should be reminded as frequently and clearly as possible
that mercy-killing is a criminal offense.
And even when the standard for a criminal conviction is not met,
it might still be possible for a civil court to conclude
that a wrongful death did occur.

COMPLETE RECORDING AND SHARING OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND OPINIONS

    A careful death-planning process will be open and honest.
All people who have a legitimate right to be involved in the process
will receive all of the documents created to fulfill the safeguards.
When the life-ending decision emerged from due consideration
for all of the alternatives to a chosen death,
then there should be no suspicion that an underground mercy-killing was committed.

THE DEATH-PLANNING COORDINATOR ORGANIZES THE SAFEGUARDS

    When a death-planning coordinator is employed,
this individual will organize and preserve all of the records
showing which safeguards were fulfilled and by whom.
These records do not become public information.
But the fact that a certain number of safeguards were fulfilled
might be disclosed to satisfy distant doubters
that this death was wisely and compassionately chosen.

    If these 18 safeguards do not seem sufficient
to discourage irrational suicides and mercy-killings,
there are several more listed in the complete catalog of safeguards:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-CAT.html.
Each of these descriptions contains a few paragraphs
explaining how that safeguard will discourage
irrational suicide and other forms of premature death.


 Created February 25, 2007; revised 2-21-2008; 11-13-2008; 1-24-2009


Go to other dangers, mistakes, & abuses of the right-to-die.





The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.