Thanks for this. I was reading some excerpts from the debates in the UK the other day and the arguments against struck me as mostly disingenuous - your piece illustrates what bothers me about them.
I am mildly disabled. I don’t want to be a burden. I’m not blessed with unlimited wealth. Those are all things to consider!
This article is subtitled: Respecting choice in a non-ideal system. It is non-ideal for several reasons: insufficient support for people suffering from disability, poverty, as well as long waiting times for essential surgery.
Most commentators on MAID are a lot younger than most of the people accessing it, and these younger commentators understandably have a normal fear of death. I think what they are doing is projecting that fear onto MAlD, and applying that projection to those in less than ideal conditions.
These commentators are usually journalists or academics and so are not in a position to "fix" Medicare or to improve conditions of poverty or disability.
It seems to me there are at least two separate questions here:
1. In a world where healthcare is inadequate, should taking your own life be a viable option?
2. In a world where healthcare is inadequate, should the (admittedly inadequate) healthcare system offer (or even recommend) life-ending interventions?
The first is an age-old question about whether suicide, in and of itself, is ever permissible, and under what circumstances. The second is a newer cousin in our medicalized culture.
These can have different responses and different rationales.
Thanks. My point wasn't to answer either of these, but just to show that inadequate (or even unjust) circumstances aren't, on their own, sufficient reason not to assist someone in dying.
Inadequate finances, inadequate care and even there is no treatment in my view are all real life conditions.
Maybe I live up to my pragmatic label and waiting around for money or supports or even a cure while surviving is not the same as thriving. I think I would still rather have the option for end of life.
Why is there a movement against access to MAID? And why does this movement focus on poverty and poor access without doing anything to improve those conditions?
Thanks Shawna. These are good questions. My good-faith answer is that well-meaning people aren't seeing the implications of banning MAID or restricting access, but I have worse-faith hypotheses as well.
Thanks for this. I was reading some excerpts from the debates in the UK the other day and the arguments against struck me as mostly disingenuous - your piece illustrates what bothers me about them.
I am mildly disabled. I don’t want to be a burden. I’m not blessed with unlimited wealth. Those are all things to consider!
As usual, you provide moral clarity.
This article is subtitled: Respecting choice in a non-ideal system. It is non-ideal for several reasons: insufficient support for people suffering from disability, poverty, as well as long waiting times for essential surgery.
Most commentators on MAID are a lot younger than most of the people accessing it, and these younger commentators understandably have a normal fear of death. I think what they are doing is projecting that fear onto MAlD, and applying that projection to those in less than ideal conditions.
These commentators are usually journalists or academics and so are not in a position to "fix" Medicare or to improve conditions of poverty or disability.
It seems to me there are at least two separate questions here:
1. In a world where healthcare is inadequate, should taking your own life be a viable option?
2. In a world where healthcare is inadequate, should the (admittedly inadequate) healthcare system offer (or even recommend) life-ending interventions?
The first is an age-old question about whether suicide, in and of itself, is ever permissible, and under what circumstances. The second is a newer cousin in our medicalized culture.
These can have different responses and different rationales.
Thanks. My point wasn't to answer either of these, but just to show that inadequate (or even unjust) circumstances aren't, on their own, sufficient reason not to assist someone in dying.
Inadequate finances, inadequate care and even there is no treatment in my view are all real life conditions.
Maybe I live up to my pragmatic label and waiting around for money or supports or even a cure while surviving is not the same as thriving. I think I would still rather have the option for end of life.
Why is there a movement against access to MAID? And why does this movement focus on poverty and poor access without doing anything to improve those conditions?
Thanks Shawna. These are good questions. My good-faith answer is that well-meaning people aren't seeing the implications of banning MAID or restricting access, but I have worse-faith hypotheses as well.