Very Interesting Kathleen Stock article

That entirely depends on how the law was set up. But it's enormously unlikely that would be allowed.

If someone is suffering from an illness that is killing them, but there's a small chance they could get a bit better and stay alive independently, and if they are sectioned, could the doctors in charge of their care 'prescribe' assisted dying? Chances are the patient might agree, but even if they didn't they could just do it anyway? If that's the case it seems pretty scary.

"It's not hard to imagine those principles could be extended past gestation and birth, if life isn't sacrosanct."

Good point, OP.

.

The article talks about parallels with gender ideology

Am as big a KS fan as the next woman, but this is pushing it IMO.

Kathleen Stock, author of 'Material Girls', is a prominent feminist.

Someone said recently that feminists having a place to discuss whatever they want is, in itself, a feminist act.

Sorry, havent rtft. But please can someone explain: why is this discussion in feminism sex and gender?

biscuitandcake - thank you for pointer to the Less Wrong substack.

It’s good to thrash these things out and thank you for replying so courteously- I know feelings run high on this issue.

Sorry I missed your point 1. We know that our government and health services don’t make decisions based purely on ethical reasoning, but on cost, pressure from business and wealthy lobbyists, and short-term soundbite-based popularity, so I don’t see why we would learn from most other country’s mistakes rather than replicate them.

@maltravers some countries allow only that format, others also allow for a doctor to actually administer the drugs. Obviously if someone doesn’t fully understand what they are doing in that moment (eg if the law allows for advanced directives, or for anyone else to make the decision when mental capacity is impaired) or has been pressured in any way, then the line between the two gets very blurred.

Your other examples are interesting. Abortion doesn’t lead to infanticide because the laws, bureaucratic processes and medical procedures we need to provide access to abortion couldn’t be used for infanticide. Not the case here.

Power of attorney DOES lead to financial abuse I’m afraid, and it’s probably one of those crimes where many instances don’t end up in court, because of all the same vulnerabilities and power dynamics that make assisted dying dangerous. In fact seeing the misuse of PoA, both at a criminal level and in more grey area ways, and being involved in mental capacity assessments around important decisions, are both experiences that have shaped my opinion on this the most. It’s not infrequent for medically vulnerable older people to be pressured into decisions which benefit others and for those to be documented as their own freely made decisions.

My understanding is that if requested they give you something to drink that finishes you off. To me that is not killing someone else, it is assisting of course.

This really seems to come down to those who think that the authorities/legal system will be able to “hold the line” and those that do not. On that I have two points:

1. we can look at other countries who have implemented this and learn from their experiences if we are drafting our own laws on this issue; and
2. Abortion laws have not led to infanticide. Laws on sectioning those with severe mental health episodes have not led to mission creep allowing many to be incarcerated. Laws re Powers of Attorney have not led to the sequestering of others’ assets. In short there are cases where we trust the law to “hold the line” and it does just that.

You’ve left off the fairly important end of what I said, which is “in certain circumstances.” It’s the only state power, other than the death penalty, that I can think of that literally makes legal one person killing another outside of war. And most secular reasons for being against the death penalty are to do with the imperfections of bureaucracy - systematic biases, bad actors, human error, abuse of power, considerations of cost over justice, procedural errors… all of those apply to this legalised process for killing too. So do the others that have been mentioned, especially around social pressure and a lack of other choices.

Just as I can think of certain types of criminals who I wouldn’t have any ethical objection to them facing the death penalty in a perfect system, so I can also think of certain diseases or situations in which I would want to have the option of a relatively quick and painless death. But the reality of the laws and policies that would be needed to support either of those things happening aren’t ones I want to live with. Disabled people and the elderly are already treated abominably by society and the state, and often have choices made for them based on paternalism, cost-cutting or worse, with those choices falsely presented as ‘informed consent.’ All of that won’t suddenly change with a legal option by which they can be killed.

I don’t think it’s fair to represent a right to request assisted dying for oneself in a case of near death and terrible suffering to “giving the state the right to kill its citizens”. Can you explain what you have in mind please?

Yes - I agree.

A friend of mine (who campaigned against ‘assisted dying’) refused food and drink. With adequate pain relief provided it’s not an unpleasant death, and importantly the person remains in control of the decision, the state doesn’t give someone else the power to end that person’s life. Many of the examples of bad deaths and protracted suffering that people give are the result of over-intervention, where someone is not given the choice of whether they want to continue being admitted to hospital with pneumonia, to be fed through a tube, etc. It would be much safer to change practices around palliative care and medical decision making than to solve those problems by giving the state the right to kill its citizens in certain circumstances.

Me too

My overriding sense is that this is such a deeply, ethically complex issue, that it absolutely needs to be discussed from all angles, and discussions like here, on this thead, are so important. Perhaps the key value of Kathleen Stock's article is what it brings to the debate.

What comes up for my own part, is having had two pets euthanased, which felt like a compassionate act; an act of love, I have often wondered why we view it so differently and prolong suffering for humans (I think about having also had the experience of living with a parent at home suffering long through terminal illness).

I also know, having been through one prolonged and painful health condition- and how small and focussed on suffering my sense of self became at those times, that if I had thought there would be no end to this, that I would not want have wanted to live that way for ever.
I also would not want to live feeling I was a burden to others. These are my personal feelings. In that instance, I am imagining I would welcome the option of being able to choose a way out.

And then, I read the point made by TempestTost here, and it makes me think again, from another perspective:

..the underlying issue is that having introduced a new principle, people begin to apply that principle to other issues, and to it's logical conclusions. This may be less obvious in the first or even second generations, where people have qualms left over from the old way of thinking. But soon enough you have people who have never had such qualms and they will not shy away from applying the principle in full.

To me, this uncomfortable to and fro-ongoing between confronting aspects is vital.

The tension between the personal and the universal; the immediate and the far reaching.

I think we so struggle with the discomfort of complexity, perhaps now more than ever, and my biggest concern would be that there is a rush to resolve the issue, because we as a society don't currently seem to have the maturity to sit a bit with the contradictions and discomfort of the dilemma in order to come to the wisest decision.

This. And this issue is a lot closer to home for me than it used to be.

There are valid arguments on both sides . I think this is an eloquent and well reasoned argument ( as you would expect from Kathleen Stock)

It's a terrible article written by someone who clearly has no real idea of the problems.

MySaxIsOnFire gave some examples of how people can suffer and the response was totally dismissive, with no sympathy whatsoever for the suffering. The only method available for someone in extreme pain to kill themselves can be to refuse food and drink and yes some people do that. It is not a good death and there should be another choice.

It is not just politicians who give little thought to this, many of the opponents of assisted dying are as blinkered as any TRA.

Brilliant article. Thanks for sharing