Pushing the Duty to Die in the UK
I am concluding a very successful trip to MA and CT, giving a series of speeches to advocates for, and defenders of, people with developmental and cognitive disabilities, in which I have warned against utilitarian bioethics and its explicit and implicit push toward the so-called "duty to die." This view is even more pronounced in the United Kingdom, where one of the most prominent ethicists is a woman named Baronness Warnock. As reported by the Telegraph, Warnock has recently called on dementia patients to kill themselves to spare society the burden of their care. From the story:
Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock.Warnock's views could just as easily apply to those with developmental disabilities or those who have suffered serious brain injuries. And don't think that her views are materially different than some--although certainly not all--bioethicists here in the USA. She's just more blunt and candid.The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain. She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
Labels: Duty to Die. Barnoness Warnock. Utilitarian Bioethics.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:14 PM
23 Comments
23 Comments:
Her Ladyship suggests that "Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families." My concern with this, in any specific case, would be whether the person involved is competent to make an informed decision about suicide, given their cognitive impairment.
Assuming that they are, in fact, competent, then I fail to see what the problem is. Yes, people in such a situation might feel that they had a moral obligation to kill themselves for the sake of others; but, after all, we don't place general restrictions on self-sacrifice, do we?
makarios - This is not an issue of self-sacrifice as exemplified whether I will buy a new watch or give the money to a needy charity. This is an issue of life/death. To term assisted suicide as "self-sacrifice" is an enormous downplay.
The other problem with accepting this mindset is the formation of an elitist culture - one where the handicapped/disabled/vulnerable are considered "less valuable" than the "normal" person.
Perhpas the UK should rethink their healthcare system as Canada is currently doing. We certainly see plenty of examples in Secondhand Smoke in its failures.
I do think it's telling that people who favor suicide should always talk loftily about "rationality" and then should say that people *with dementia* should opt for suicide. What they mean is only too clear: People with dementia, who are in the nature of the case therefore unable to make a rational decision themselves, should be killed by others. To get the cure-all of consent in there, they'd probably have to say that they should leave instructions _before_ they get dementia that they be killed _if_ they get dementia. That, of course, would make it all okay. /sarc
Nazis went after the handicapped/disabled/vulnerable too.
Nazi Euthanasia Propaganda
To summarize the Baroness's sentiments: "Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families."
If this idea becomes the norm, or at least more accepted, the obvious next step will be to delete the words suffering from dementia from that sentence, so that it becomes, "Elderly people should consider ending their lives...[etc.]" There is a lot of hand-wringing now over the projected costs to Western health care systems of the elderly as a group, especially the "old old" over about 75, over the next few decades. You see which way that will be going.
And, you know, in her photo the Baroness does look quite a little past her prime. Obviously she is in her twilight years and about to cost British society big time, so perhaps she should consider setting an example herself. Britain's NHS would surely be grateful for the savings. Jawohl! [/sarcasm]
Dave: The two cases that you suggest (contributing money to a charity and ending one's life for the sake of others) differ in degree, but not in nature. Although there is considerably more at stake in the latter case than the former, they both involve self-sacrifice.
Johnny: I was wondering how long it would take for someone to play the "Hitler card." The fact is that there is an enormous difference between a competent person willingly giving his or her life for the benefit of others, and the killing of unwilling victims for the supposed good of the state. A society (or a person) who is truly capable of "sliding down the slippery slope" from the one to the other is in serious need of an ethics course.
K-man: You refer, in your second paragraph, to an "obvious next step." First of all, to whom is it obvious? To you perhaps, but perhaps not to others. For that matter, assuming that the reference to dementia were deleted--again, if the person were competent to make that decision, where is the problem?
K-man: That concept has already been pushed in the Hastings Center Report, no less, "Is There a Duty do Die?" by Hardwig. Should be available through a Google search.
These are the kinds of things that become thinkable once we reject human exceptionalism and the equal intrinsic moral worth of human life.
Keep up the good conversation.
My feelings. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!! It is getting to be a very Cold & Calculating world to live in.
Wesley, thanks, and I am indeed already familiar with the Hardwig essay. After reading your past books on the burgeoning culture of death, I looked firsthand at much of the creepier source material you cited, including that.
You might recall that I left work two years ago to care for my ailing stepfather (deceased suddenly last November) and mother. She was diagnosed with breast cancer as I was intending to return to work this past winter, and I have delayed that return until her radiation and chemo were finished. They just now are. I shudder to think what Makarios would think of the situation. By the way, my stepdad was 71 when he died, and Mom is only 64 but nearly an invalid from ministrokes. But the sacrifices in taking care of them have been worth it--at least to me, if not to many self-proclaimed bioethicists who would be happy to inflict futile care theory upon them.
Some day your reward will be all the greater because your sacrifices have made you the better person. Practicing ethical morals is a tough sell to some but not to me K-man. I appreciate and respect your commitment as one of the most glaring examples of practicing the humanity that makes us exceptional as a species.
K-man: I have met many people who acted humanly like you have and are, and not a one ever regretted it. Example: Tom Lorentzen, whose story of caring for his mother conclued both FE and Culture of Death. Thanks so much.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Makarios: The fact is Nazis whined about handicapped creating a financial burden, so then is Warnock. There is no "enormous difference" unless you whitewash the situation.
The problem for me isn't allowing people to kill themselves, they'll do it anyway if suffering or feeling a burden to loved ones. The problem is once again, deeming certain classes of humans more worthy of death than others.
For example my Christian Bible describes unbelievers as brute beasts and going to Hell anyway, so from that perspective, would it be ethical for Christians to suggest that atheists end it all right now so as to cease wasting our natural resources? According to you, that should also be fine, as long as atheists are "willing" to do it for our benefit. That is, unless you advocate a double standard.
Johnny, I'm an atheist, but I'd certainly not agree with you that I'm wasting resources. In my opinion, those who spend their time praying and going to church are the ones wasting their time and effort. If atheists don't believe your Bible-inspired first premise, why would they ever agree with your conclusions?
k-man, I'm not all that scary. Really. Ask my fiancee.
And Johnny, I reiterate that there's a world of difference between killing unwilling victims, on the one hand, and enabling an autonomous decision for suicide on the other, regardless of who was "whining" about what.
And please note that precisely what is being discussed here is "suggesting." If Her Ladyship, or anyone else, suggests to an elderly person that they really ought to top themselves, said elderly persons are at liberty to tell H.L. to take a hike--as atheists are at liberty to tell Christians to take a hike if they make similar suggestions.
I wonder, though, why some people seem to be all in favour personal autonomy unless the person in question might autonomously make a decision that they don't agree with.
Blogger Makarios said...
" k-man, I'm not all that scary. Really. Ask my fiancee."
Eva Hitler became Mrs Adolph Hitler just before they executed themselves because the world recognized Adolph as a bad guy while she thought he was a good guy. Need I say more? Wink.
The first step towards the incremental trip to killing those unable to defend themselves starts innocently enough. You start with the claim that you feel duty bound to relieve their suffering. The next claim is that they need your help to finish their death march and you move to the third step of finding that the patient is a drain on society. We have already reached that final step with Goebbels, Hitler & now Baroness Warnock. No way of sugar coating that point despite the claim that it is only a suggestion since she isn't putting a humane value on the patient but on the financial value of removing the patient from life.
Donnie: Please no calling others Hitler, even in jest. Thank you. Please carry on.
Never meant that Makarios is a Hitler or even a believer in the Nazi Cause Wesley. The tease is that a fiancee can look upon the one they love with a different view then everyone else. BTW, congratulations upon the fact that your fiancee has chosen you as a Soul Mate Makarios.
Joshua: My proposal is example only, and it doesn't ask you to agree with it. I'm asking why it would be ok for Warnock to suggest dementia patients take their own lives, but not ok for Christians to do the same for atheists. If in fact that's your position.
Makarios: I assume the Nazi action started with a suggestion too.
From Warnock's perspective such old people are a financial burden, maybe from some Christian perspectives atheists are a burden due to imposing a damaging secular worldview on us. Maybe from atheist perspectives, as Joshua implied, Christians impose their religious views on them and interfere with their freedom.
So then is it ok for any/all of them to kindly suggest suicide to relieve burdens of the other? Or are you starting to think maybe all of them should just keep quiet and deal with it, rather than open the door to suggesting some classes of humans are less worthy of life than others?
Especially since that door may eventually be opened farther for something people don't like about you.
Slippery-slope arguments are always dicey. The assertion that "A will inevitably lead to Z" requires proof, which is seldom forthcoming. This type of argument generally ignores the significant qualitative differences between the first step and the last, as well as the complexities of lengthy chains of cause and effect.
As for the argumentum ad Nazium, I should not have to point out the fallacy of the argument that, because the Nazis engaged in murder of the innocents, voluntary suicide is intrinsically wrong.
Cept that the increments are already on display. We have mothers and fathers killing their children today because they are crippled , born in bus stations as an inconvenience and then dumped into garbage pails. We have the intelligence to weigh the moral issues as we decide to murder the innocents inside and outside the womb or as they loose certain health abilities to old age which could cause a drain on finances of medical establishments.
Makarios: I never "asserted A will inevitably lead to Z" but rather that her deeming certain classes of humans to be more worthy of death than others is a cold piece of work. I don't care if it's just a suggestion, or will lead to anything worse, or not. It still reeks of what Nazis desired.
So do you see a problem with some Christians also kindly suggesting that atheists voluntarily kill themselves, or not? You shouldn't if your argument remains consistent.
"So do you see a problem with some Christians also kindly suggesting that atheists voluntarily kill themselves, or not?"
From a strictly ethical perspective, I don't see how it would be any worse than any other unwelcome suggestion. It doesn't seem, on its face, to violate any significant ethical principle in any meaningful way.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home