A very compassionate, neoliberal option to die with dignity and end protracted suffering. Sadly, the public debate on the subject is often incredibly poor!
I am always baffled why their is so much opposition to this on a liberal minded sub like this one.
Consistent-Study-287 on
This was very well written. This argument here stood out to me as a strong one:
>The autonomy argument. This is the strongest, and it is where the Canadian regime was born. In Carter, the Supreme Court didn’t invent a new right out of thin air. It recognized that the prohibition on assisted dying violated Section 7 of the Charter, which protects life, liberty, and security of the person. The Court held that forcing a competent adult to endure intolerable suffering, or to take their own life prematurely while still physically able, constituted a deprivation of liberty and security.
>Notice what this argument is not. It is not the claim that life is disposable, or that suffering is meaningless, or that death is no big deal. It is the claim that a competent adult who is already dying or already suffering grievously from an irremediable condition has the right to decide, for themselves, that enough is enough. This is the same principle that already governs every other medical decision in Canada. You can refuse chemotherapy. You can refuse a ventilator. You can refuse dialysis. You can request the withdrawal of life support and die of dehydration over the course of days. All of these are legal. All of them result in death. Nobody calls them “state-sanctioned killing.”
>The philosopher Dan Brock made this point with uncomfortable clarity: if a patient has the right to refuse treatment and die slowly, on what grounds do we deny them the right to die quickly? The outcomes are identical. The intent is identical. The only difference is the mechanism. And if the mechanism itself is the entire moral distinction, then you are saying that it is acceptable to die of dehydration over a week, fully conscious, but unacceptable to die painlessly in seconds by injection. That is not an ethical principle. That is an aesthetic preference dressed up as one.
2 Comments
I am always baffled why their is so much opposition to this on a liberal minded sub like this one.
This was very well written. This argument here stood out to me as a strong one:
>The autonomy argument. This is the strongest, and it is where the Canadian regime was born. In Carter, the Supreme Court didn’t invent a new right out of thin air. It recognized that the prohibition on assisted dying violated Section 7 of the Charter, which protects life, liberty, and security of the person. The Court held that forcing a competent adult to endure intolerable suffering, or to take their own life prematurely while still physically able, constituted a deprivation of liberty and security.
>Notice what this argument is not. It is not the claim that life is disposable, or that suffering is meaningless, or that death is no big deal. It is the claim that a competent adult who is already dying or already suffering grievously from an irremediable condition has the right to decide, for themselves, that enough is enough. This is the same principle that already governs every other medical decision in Canada. You can refuse chemotherapy. You can refuse a ventilator. You can refuse dialysis. You can request the withdrawal of life support and die of dehydration over the course of days. All of these are legal. All of them result in death. Nobody calls them “state-sanctioned killing.”
>The philosopher Dan Brock made this point with uncomfortable clarity: if a patient has the right to refuse treatment and die slowly, on what grounds do we deny them the right to die quickly? The outcomes are identical. The intent is identical. The only difference is the mechanism. And if the mechanism itself is the entire moral distinction, then you are saying that it is acceptable to die of dehydration over a week, fully conscious, but unacceptable to die painlessly in seconds by injection. That is not an ethical principle. That is an aesthetic preference dressed up as one.