Very Interesting Kathleen Stock article

[TempestTost]

I found this article one of the best I have read about assisted dying. It is the only one I've seen articulate so clearly the concerns around how it might change people's ideas about what counts as unbearable suffering.

She clearly draws a lot from her experience looking at what has happened with gender ideology, both legally and socially and psychologically. And her philosophy background clearly helps her frame this in a way that is clear and exact, which is so hard to find.

Anyway, I thought people might find it an interesting comparison. It's from Unherd, so you might need to register to read it but you can do so for free.

https://unherd.com/2024/10/theres-no-dignity-in-assisted-dying/

Yes - I agree.

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?

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

The article talks about parallels with gender ideology

There is arguably an intersection between assisted death and abortion in places where it is allowed to euthanize an infant considered to be too damaged to live. It's essentially the same logic that allows for late term abortions when there is a serious medical issue, in that case even ones compatible with life.

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

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

Good point, OP.

.

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.

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