I find the character argument strange and inert. Once you accept the moral comparability between refusing life-saving care and assisted death, I do not see why it would matter if physicians feel really good about what they do.
Even if they felt pleasure when they euthanized a patient, they could equally feel that way when they withhold/withdraw. Does that mean that withholding/withdrawing is impermissible? No. In fact, it is irrelevant.
I suspect that what is going on is less an attempt to formulate a logically valid argument and more that the opponents just feel an instinctive sense this is morally awful and are trying to explain that in a way that will resonate with others. Unfortunately, I fear they may have tapped into a human bias here that will give their argument undue effect.
In particular, we tend to have strong feelings about the sacred and the profane -- hence why people object to paying for sex but not the kinds of implicit trades that happen in relationships, the former mixes the profane with the sacred. Ending life has a similar quality but the realities of people who need to do this as a commercial transaction will feel like mixing the sacred and profane to many people.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to somehow reduce the involvement of the MAID providers so they would only be described as verifying the safeguards while the actual fatal act would be carried out by the patient or their relatives/friends. I dunno if it's as good in general but if the argument starts gaining traction it might be a good response.
--
Re: combat deaths, the number would be way higher if you included deaths caused via bombing or bombardment (Hiroshima for one).
Yes, that's probably right. One advantage of requiring self-administration is that the physician is merely facilitating the death, but the patient is doing the final action. However, the downsides of prohibiting provider administration outweigh this advantage (especially that it discriminates against people with some physical disabilities).
Right, I agree. That's why I didn't suggest banning but reducing it. I think it would be alot harder to use this tactic to demonize someone who only occasionally helps a few people with administration who can't do it themselves and don't have family/friends who want to and mostly just acts as a witness.
Indeed, making self-administration the default would change the perceived nature of the transaction. Instead of being paid (I presume participation is treated like any other medical service) to end a life they would be paid as a medical witness to assist someone ending their own life who then occasionally assists someone who can't administer the drugs themselves.
Yah, I know it's kinda a silly thing since in a rational sense nothing has really changed. But I think it's a bit like the way we see it as different to pay someone for sex and pay them for their time. I think many people have a different reaction to the idea of paying someone to go on a date (say to your friend's wedding ...so it's really just a date not a cover for prostitution) who may choose to have sex and paying for sex.
I don't mean that as an analogy just to illustrate the point that people see it as different when you remove the act from the financial/job realm and make it purely a matter of compassion. But, of course, if you're disabled and need that assistance you'll check that the doctor you involve is willing to help.
I disagree with your claim that withdrawing life-sustaining treatments is a killing. While the act of removing the treatment is a "positive" act, the provider does not take a "positive" step to cause the death of the patient. Withdrawing is a "proximate" cause, whereas MAiD provision is the actual cause.
As I discuss in my post about this, yours is the common view, but it doesn't hold up. If someone sneaks into a hospital room and maliciously disconnects the patient's ventilator, no one would accept "I didn't kill the patient! I was just the proximate cause of her death!" as an excuse. It's clearly killing in that case—the person should be charged with homicide—and since only the motive changes, other cases of withdrawing ventilators must also be killing.
Perhaps, but that was not explicit. I have had many cases where those unfamiliar with the ethics of withholding and/or withdrawing treatments struggle with thinking they are "killing" their loved one. It may "feel" different, but in ethics both are permissible.
They are consenting to the killing of their loved one. We use the moral fiction—withdrawing isn't killing—because it makes families feel better, which is comforting but, strictly speaking, false.
Thanks for this analysis!
I find the character argument strange and inert. Once you accept the moral comparability between refusing life-saving care and assisted death, I do not see why it would matter if physicians feel really good about what they do.
Even if they felt pleasure when they euthanized a patient, they could equally feel that way when they withhold/withdraw. Does that mean that withholding/withdrawing is impermissible? No. In fact, it is irrelevant.
I suspect that what is going on is less an attempt to formulate a logically valid argument and more that the opponents just feel an instinctive sense this is morally awful and are trying to explain that in a way that will resonate with others. Unfortunately, I fear they may have tapped into a human bias here that will give their argument undue effect.
In particular, we tend to have strong feelings about the sacred and the profane -- hence why people object to paying for sex but not the kinds of implicit trades that happen in relationships, the former mixes the profane with the sacred. Ending life has a similar quality but the realities of people who need to do this as a commercial transaction will feel like mixing the sacred and profane to many people.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to somehow reduce the involvement of the MAID providers so they would only be described as verifying the safeguards while the actual fatal act would be carried out by the patient or their relatives/friends. I dunno if it's as good in general but if the argument starts gaining traction it might be a good response.
--
Re: combat deaths, the number would be way higher if you included deaths caused via bombing or bombardment (Hiroshima for one).
Yes, that's probably right. One advantage of requiring self-administration is that the physician is merely facilitating the death, but the patient is doing the final action. However, the downsides of prohibiting provider administration outweigh this advantage (especially that it discriminates against people with some physical disabilities).
Right, I agree. That's why I didn't suggest banning but reducing it. I think it would be alot harder to use this tactic to demonize someone who only occasionally helps a few people with administration who can't do it themselves and don't have family/friends who want to and mostly just acts as a witness.
Indeed, making self-administration the default would change the perceived nature of the transaction. Instead of being paid (I presume participation is treated like any other medical service) to end a life they would be paid as a medical witness to assist someone ending their own life who then occasionally assists someone who can't administer the drugs themselves.
Yah, I know it's kinda a silly thing since in a rational sense nothing has really changed. But I think it's a bit like the way we see it as different to pay someone for sex and pay them for their time. I think many people have a different reaction to the idea of paying someone to go on a date (say to your friend's wedding ...so it's really just a date not a cover for prostitution) who may choose to have sex and paying for sex.
I don't mean that as an analogy just to illustrate the point that people see it as different when you remove the act from the financial/job realm and make it purely a matter of compassion. But, of course, if you're disabled and need that assistance you'll check that the doctor you involve is willing to help.
I disagree with your claim that withdrawing life-sustaining treatments is a killing. While the act of removing the treatment is a "positive" act, the provider does not take a "positive" step to cause the death of the patient. Withdrawing is a "proximate" cause, whereas MAiD provision is the actual cause.
As I discuss in my post about this, yours is the common view, but it doesn't hold up. If someone sneaks into a hospital room and maliciously disconnects the patient's ventilator, no one would accept "I didn't kill the patient! I was just the proximate cause of her death!" as an excuse. It's clearly killing in that case—the person should be charged with homicide—and since only the motive changes, other cases of withdrawing ventilators must also be killing.
https://valuejudgments.substack.com/p/a-moral-fiction
I think the implication was the opponents of MAID would judge it to be so.
Perhaps, but that was not explicit. I have had many cases where those unfamiliar with the ethics of withholding and/or withdrawing treatments struggle with thinking they are "killing" their loved one. It may "feel" different, but in ethics both are permissible.
They are consenting to the killing of their loved one. We use the moral fiction—withdrawing isn't killing—because it makes families feel better, which is comforting but, strictly speaking, false.