An argument against assisted dying or euthanasia often goes like this one from the blog BioEdge (a bioethics blog run by an Australian Roman Catholic). Under the headline “Locked-in patients are happy, says Belgian researcher,” Michael Cook, the author, points out that
Only 7% [of those with Locked-in Syndrome] were interested in euthanasia.
And since, he says, if they would only wait, they would find that they can adapt to being locked-in — that is, conscious, but unable to move, or to communicate except (possibly) by moving their eyes — there is no reason to provide euthanasia for that small percentage. Hence: “the 7% solution.”
Basically the same thing applies to people who are dying. Harvey Cochinov et al., in their paper “Dignity Therapy: A Novel Psychotherapeutic Intervention for Patients Near the End of Life“, point out that dying patients can, by the use of their techniques, be given a sense of their continued dignity and value, and Margaret Somerville has taken this as evidence that assisted dying is unnecessary. In her article, “Suffering with Dignity,” published on Mercator Net (another Roman Catholic bioethics blog — God’s minions ceaselessly at work making life miserable for the rest of us), she says that what Cochinov’s “dignity therapy” does is to show that:
We can give people “mini-hopes” – things to look forward to – even when a long-term future is not possible.
And she argues in the same article that:
Euthanasia is proposed by its advocates as an appropriate response to pain and suffering, precisely because, they argue, it gives patients ultimate control over what happens to them.
But both claims are wrong. Advocates of assisted dying do not say that assisted dying (or euthanasia) is “an appropriate response to pain and suffering.” That is not the claim. What advocates of assisted dying claim is that choice in dying is the appropriate response to people who are suffering. And giving people “mini-hopes” is all very well — and we should do it if we can and if people want – but in Cochinov’s research 9% of the research group still wanted help to die. So, whether a 7% or a 9% solution, there are always some people who would choose to die, regardless of the mini-hopes or the chance that they might learn to adapt to circumstances they now find intolerable.
Arguing against providing assisted dying for that 7% of Locked-in Syndrome sufferers who ask for it, Michael Cook says:
I am not a philosopher, but shouldn’t an informed choice lead you to choose something good?
Dying is never a good, then? Why then is it that so many people say, when someone has died, and is now released from the suffering they endured as they died, ”It’s sad to see him go, but it really was a blessing”? This is said again and again. Surely, given the early Christian arguments in favour of dying as martyrs — see my last post on Jim Spiegel and his funny argument – as well as the hope of heavenly reward, and joining our loved ones who have gone before us, death, for Christians, can’t be all that bad.
In a response to the Belgian research, Oxford bioethicist Julian Savulescu points out two important qualifications. First, the research includes responses from only 40% of those who were approached, and the original target group included only those with Locked-in Syndrome who can communicate! Second, he points out that, while it is true that the human ability to adapt to circumstances and find meaning in apparently intolerable circumstances is remarkable, it is still the case that:
What makes each person’s own living hell is a matter for that person. It is subjective. And we can adapt to hell. That is important for all of us to know. But it does not change the rights of individuals to make what they will of their lives, including choosing the conditions under which and the time to end them. [my italics]
In other words, forcing even 7% to stay alive in what they consider a living hell is forcing them to live in hell, and forcing anyone to live in hell — while it seems completely acceptable to the Christian god — is a form of tyranny which, for human morality, is intolerable and cruel. It just goes to show that Christians are cognitively challenged when it comes to morals.
++++++++
Thanks to Chris for this link to a comment on the Belgian (Steven Laurey) study: Neurologica Blog.
Steven Novella wrote about study, and I thought it was interesting that he wrote it was not controlled all that well. When patients were asked about their demeanor, they had family with them – which could’ve biased the results.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2893
I can’t help thinking that by making the statement that *only* 7% or 9% would prefer to die, those opposing right-to-die options are trying to imply that since 91-93% of people would decide to live, there is a moral failure on the part of those few who decide to “give up”.
Yes Theo, I agree. I think that is precisely what is being said. It’s an act of weakness to give up before the end. Indeed, from the Christian point of view, suicide is not only cowardly, it is also a betrayal of others (not only of God). And religious opposition to assisted dying is, I believe, based on the religious condemnation of suicide.
Thank you Chris. As you will see, I have added Steven Novella’s comment as a link at the end of the post.
It just goes to show that Christians are cognitively challenged when it comes to morals.
Ouch!
(What was that thesis Jim Spiegel was nattering on about?)
To conclude that death is a “good” based on the statement that “it’s sad that they went, but a blessing their suffering ended” is hardly logical. Moreover, the fact that Christians celebrate martyrs isn’t an argument for the goodness of death.
Death, by its very definition, is the end of life. And if life is an absolute good (as Christianity teaches), then death must *not* be good. That’s not to say we can’t learn something from it, or that it doesn’t (in Christian theology) bring us to a better place. But the moment itself, since it is the cessation of the vital act, is a physical evil.
Anyway, you might appreciate (if only to disparage) this recent article at Ethika Politika: http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/2011/03/07/dying-with-dignity-a-primer/
PS: Kantian ethics firmly oppose suicide too. I think you’d be hard pressed to call Kant a Christian — at least in any relevant sense.
Quite clearly life is not an absolute good. If Christianity teaches the contrary, then it is simply wrong. Why should we think that? It is good, certainly, in so far there are purposes to be sought and ends to be pursued. But when life becomes nothing but a misery, and continued life a torment, why should we count it good? Kant may not have been a Christian, but he adopted the Christian repugnance of suicide. There is simply no reason, on the basis of his ethics, why he could not have justified it. His response is visceral, not rational. I shall have a look at your reference.
Now, Andrew, having read the article you suggest, I see no reason at all to accept that life itself is a dignity. This is simply to use the word ‘dignity’ in a way that has no real precedent, aside from recent Roman Catholic attempts to hijack the word. Human dignity resided in human rationality and the capacity for rational decision. There is no reason in the world why a man, reduced to childhood dependence, should continue to regard himself as a being with dignity. If he does not have both the self-respect that is an essential component of dignity, and the ability to shape his life according to his own sense of who he is and what he is about, then he may be right to see his dignity as threatened or destroyed, and in this case it would not be at all inappropriate for him to make a choice to die. The idea that biological life is somehow something with dignity is simply a misunderstanding of an important word. I shall discuss this again, but you can, if you like, go back and read what I have already written about dignity. It is in two parts: one and two. As I say, I see absolutely no reason to define ‘dignity’ in the way suggested. What John Paul Nunez is speaking about is the sanctity of life. That’s another question, but no better than dignity at prohibiting assisted dying.