Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Court ruling backs aided suicide
By Peter Singer |
July 30, 2012, Monday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
GLORIA Taylor, a Canadian, has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Over a period of a few years, her muscles will weaken until she can no longer walk, use her hands, chew, swallow, speak, and ultimately, breathe. Then she will die.
Taylor does not want to go through all of that. She wants to die at a time of her own choosing.
Suicide is not a crime in Canada, so, as Taylor put it: "I simply cannot understand why the law holds that the able-bodied who are terminally ill are allowed to shoot themselves when they have had enough because they are able to hold a gun steady, but because my illness affects my ability to move and control my body, I cannot be allowed compassionate help to allow me to commit an equivalent act using lethal medication."
She went to court, arguing that the provisions of the Criminal Code that prevent her from receiving assistance in dying are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court hearing was remarkable for the thoroughness with which Justice Lynn Smith examined the ethical questions before her.
Last month, Smith issued her judgment. The case, Carter v Canada, could serve as a textbook on the facts, law, and ethics of assistance in dying. For example, there has been much debate about the difference between the accepted practice of withholding life support or some other treatment, knowing that the patient is likely to die without it, and the contested practice of actively helping a patient to die.
Smith's ruling finds that "a bright-line ethical distinction is elusive," and that the view that there is no such ethical distinction is "persuasive." She considers, and accepts, an argument advanced by Wayne Sumner, a distinguished Canadian philosopher: if the patient's circumstances are such that suicide would be ethically permissible were the patient able to do it, then it is also ethically permissible for the physician to provide the means for the patient to do it.
Smith also had to assess whether there are public-policy considerations that count against the legalization of physician assistance in dying. Her decision focuses mainly on the risk that vulnerable people - for example, the aged or those with disabilities - will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying when they do not really want it.
There are conflicting views about whether legalization of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, and of physician assistance in dying in the US state of Oregon, have led to an increase in the number of vulnerable people being killed or assisted in dying without their full, informed consent.
For many years, Herbert Hendin, a psychiatrist and suicide expert, has asserted that the safeguards incorporated in these laws fail to protect the vulnerable. He gave evidence at the trial. So, too, on the other side, did Hans van Delden, a Dutch nursing home physician and bioethicist. Peggy Battin, the most prominent American bioethicist, also took the stand.
In this dispute, Smith comes down firmly on the side of van Delden and Battin, finding that "the empirical evidence gathered in the two jurisdictions does not support the hypothesis that physician-assisted death has imposed a particular risk to socially vulnerable populations."
Smith thus opened the door for physician assistance in dying for any grievously and irremediably ill competent adult. The decision will almost certainly be appealed, and the final outcome seems likely to depend on the appellate judges' interpretations of Canadian law.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2012.www.project-syndicate.org. Shanghai Daily condensed the article.
Taylor does not want to go through all of that. She wants to die at a time of her own choosing.
Suicide is not a crime in Canada, so, as Taylor put it: "I simply cannot understand why the law holds that the able-bodied who are terminally ill are allowed to shoot themselves when they have had enough because they are able to hold a gun steady, but because my illness affects my ability to move and control my body, I cannot be allowed compassionate help to allow me to commit an equivalent act using lethal medication."
She went to court, arguing that the provisions of the Criminal Code that prevent her from receiving assistance in dying are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court hearing was remarkable for the thoroughness with which Justice Lynn Smith examined the ethical questions before her.
Last month, Smith issued her judgment. The case, Carter v Canada, could serve as a textbook on the facts, law, and ethics of assistance in dying. For example, there has been much debate about the difference between the accepted practice of withholding life support or some other treatment, knowing that the patient is likely to die without it, and the contested practice of actively helping a patient to die.
Smith's ruling finds that "a bright-line ethical distinction is elusive," and that the view that there is no such ethical distinction is "persuasive." She considers, and accepts, an argument advanced by Wayne Sumner, a distinguished Canadian philosopher: if the patient's circumstances are such that suicide would be ethically permissible were the patient able to do it, then it is also ethically permissible for the physician to provide the means for the patient to do it.
Smith also had to assess whether there are public-policy considerations that count against the legalization of physician assistance in dying. Her decision focuses mainly on the risk that vulnerable people - for example, the aged or those with disabilities - will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying when they do not really want it.
There are conflicting views about whether legalization of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, and of physician assistance in dying in the US state of Oregon, have led to an increase in the number of vulnerable people being killed or assisted in dying without their full, informed consent.
For many years, Herbert Hendin, a psychiatrist and suicide expert, has asserted that the safeguards incorporated in these laws fail to protect the vulnerable. He gave evidence at the trial. So, too, on the other side, did Hans van Delden, a Dutch nursing home physician and bioethicist. Peggy Battin, the most prominent American bioethicist, also took the stand.
In this dispute, Smith comes down firmly on the side of van Delden and Battin, finding that "the empirical evidence gathered in the two jurisdictions does not support the hypothesis that physician-assisted death has imposed a particular risk to socially vulnerable populations."
Smith thus opened the door for physician assistance in dying for any grievously and irremediably ill competent adult. The decision will almost certainly be appealed, and the final outcome seems likely to depend on the appellate judges' interpretations of Canadian law.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2012.www.project-syndicate.org. Shanghai Daily condensed the article.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
