Red-herring arguments against the Right to Die
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
On these pages, my colleague Ethan Epstein explains his opposition to the right to die via assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide laws do not, therefore, guarantee a right to die. Rather, they create a new right through legislation: the right of doctors to kill their patients. The only party whose rights are expanded by assisted suicide laws are those of physicians who wish to terminate their patients’ lives.
I can’t quite understand the argument here but it is, at best, a classic exercise in missing the point. Nobody is suggesting that physicians should have carte blanche to go around killing whoever they want, whenever they want. For doctors to perform this should require iron clad proof of consent from the patient — or at the very least, from a family member or friend who the individual has legally authorized to make such a decision. Absent that, the doctor should be tried for murder, no two ways.
In a broader sense, it’s premature to simply declare that assisted suicide can’t be legalized in a way that enhances individual liberty.
Forbidding it off-hand violates fundamental tenets of conservatism and libertarianism, as it permits government to legislate extremely private matters and to let bureaucrats make decisions that only doctors and patients should be allowed to make.
As for the Hippocratic Oath, it’s plain to see that forcing a dying individual to live the remainder of his days in pain and suffering against their will, can be construed as an example of government doing harm.
Beyond this, there’s the religious notion — fleshed out in Jack Kevorkian’s life story film “You Don’t Know Jack” — that permitting assisted suicide is “playing God,” that only God should decide who lives and dies. This, again, is a red herring. Leaving aside that whole Church and State thing, the very concept of modern medicine reflects a desire to “play God.” Anytime a physician operates a procedure or prescribes scientific medicine to a patient, that doctor is altering the course of nature.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Thank you.
When I read Mr. Epstein’s piece the other day, I was so bothered by it, I could not collect my thoughts into a useful response. Suffice it to say, red herrings don’t make his case.
I agree 100% with stunvegas! Thanks Sahil; for that well thought out and pragmatic rebuttal.
[...] Red-herring arguments against the Right to DieTrue/SlantOn these pages, my colleague Ethan Epstein explains his opposition to the right to die via assisted suicide. Assisted suicide laws do not, …Against "The Right to Die"Big Thinkall 2 news articles » [...]
Excellent post.
And who’s to say God didn’t want that person to use their right to die?
Great rebuttal. d
there is no god so how can you play one ?and life belongs to each person to use as they please.as for other peoples lifes they should be treated as sacred.therefore no one would harm any one except themselves if they so choose