Pro assisted suiciders often claim that the only reasons to oppose euthanasia/self mercy killing are religious. They will claim that opponents see suffering as “redemptive” and thus desirable–intentionally misstating that doctrine– and oppose mercy killing on the basis that only God can take a life.
That caricature isn’t true, of course. Even the Catholic Church makes many arguments that are not based in its religious dogma but our human duty to care for the sick and protect the vulnerable. Moreover, the rational reasons for opposing assisted suicide are more numerous and robust than religious arguments, because they hit squarely in one of the few remaining areas of broad value agreement in society–at least in the abstract–the need to protect and promote universal human rights.
I have been making the rational argument against euthanasia/assisted suicide for 17 years, and Rita Marker for more than twenty. My good pal Nat Hentoff, an atheist, has been even more explicit in this regard, repeatedly arguing with his fellow secular humanists that opposing assisted suicide is that belief system’s proper position.
Now, Brendan O’Neill, the editor of Spike, has weighed in with a good column making the humanist case against legalizing assisted suicide. I don’t agree with all of it. For example, he would seem to prefer no law rather than legalization or prohibition, because that would permit people to decide what to do in the privacy of family and physician decision making. But once killing is not prohibited, it is by definition permitted–and the potential for abuse is way too dangerous to permit state neutrality on the issue.
But then, he makes some points, that euthanasia advocacy reflects a profound nihilism and anti human exceptionalism (my terms), that I think are very worth heeding. From the column:
It seems pretty irrefutable to me that the campaign to legalise assisted suicide has become bound up with society’s broader inability to value and celebrate human life today. It is clear that society finds it increasingly difficult to say that human existence is a good thing – you can see this in everything from the environmentalist discussion of newborn babies as ‘future polluters’ to the widespread scaremongering about the ‘ageing timebomb’. And you can see it in the fact that some in the pro-assisted dying campaign want to go beyond having ‘mercy killings’ for people close to death to having ‘assisted dying’ for the very disabled, the ill and even, in the case of Dignitas in Switzerland, the depressed. This effectively sanctions suicide as a response to personal hardship, and gives a green light to hopelessness.
That fits with squarely with my warning that humanism is mutating into anti-humanism. But back to O’Neill:
The campaign for the right to die has both been heavily influenced by and also influences today’s broader anti-life culture. It expresses a broader social pessimism, a shift away from improving human life towards focusing a great deal of our moral and political energies on bringing to an end damaged or impaired human lives. Quite often today the campaign for the right to die goes hand-in-hand with the idea that there are too many people – especially old people – and that society can’t cope with them. When Terry Pratchett, who suffers from early-onset Alzheimer’s, suggested creating assisted suicide tribunals he was championed by commentators who basically said: ‘Yes, we need to do something about all these old, mentally-ill people.’ One sympathetic commentator said the rising number of old people is a ‘social catastrophe’ and pointed out that a patient with dementia costs the economy eight times as much as a patient with heart disease. This is increasingly how we judge human life today: not by its internal worth or moral meaning, but by its financial implications or environmental implications.
Precisely. And it wouldn’t be limited to the elderly, but also people with disabilities and others who become deemed drags on society. That becomes the default setting once society rejects human exceptionalism.
Assisted suicide/euthanasia is one tile in a much larger and dangerous mosaic, which, in its rejection of human exceptionalism, profoundly endanger universal human rights. We need more secular humanists like O’Neill and Hentoff making that important case.
May 17th, 2010 | 12:45 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: “The Humanist Case Against Euthanasia” http://bit.ly/aqwlqT #tcot [...]
May 17th, 2010 | 2:44 pm
I’ve posted this, and am now being pelted with, “Can’t I choose when to end my own life?” How would you respond?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
This isn’t about suicide, it is about ASSISTED suicide. People certainly have the power to kill themselves if they really want to do that, but they don’t have the right to bring others into that process, that is, a conspiracy to end a human life. And they don’t have the right to have society bless the decision. Indeed, what is our obligation as a society when we learn one of our brothers or sisters wants to commit suicide? I say it is always prevention and never facilitation.
May 17th, 2010 | 4:38 pm
Not all arguments are religious, true, but human dignity arguments have similar problems with relativism as the religious arguments.
May 17th, 2010 | 5:07 pm
[...] “The Humanist Case Against Euthanasia” » Secondhand Smoke | A … The Worst-Case Global Warming Scenario? Much Of Earth Unihabitable …Worst-case thinking for the screenwriterSomebody's got a case of the Mondays « Flickr BlogTavis Smiley Sets The Record Straight | TECHNOLOGY NEWSBurnley seek new investment | Inno Press | Up to date. Up to future.Police still seek suspect in razor case – Crime & Courts – Ledger … View the Contact Powered by Staff [...]
May 17th, 2010 | 6:35 pm
Nat Hentoff, is probably one of the most courageous, and independent thinkers around. His consistent Pro-life position, is a wonderful example to us all, and shows the lie that atheism is inextricably linked to the culture of death.
Once upon a time, it was axiomatic that the preservation of life was a very good thing. Why this has changed, is no doubt complex, but never underestimate pure, simple selfishnish. We want lives uncomplicated with caring for the disabiled, and what a great fix, give them a “good death”.
We rightly consider someone who is suicidal as needing immediate help, and that her suicidal ideations are the result of some mental disfunctioning. But, when it comes to “assisted suicide”, many want to determine if the person in question is of “right mind”. Why don’t we do this with merely suicidal people? That is, if someone is attempting suicide, why not determine if he is of sound mind, and if so, let him go through with it? It’s his body, right?
The reason, of course, is we rightly conclude that, anyone threatening suicide, MUST NECESSARILY NOT be of sound mind. I would submit, that this same reasoning should be applied to those wanting assisted suicide. This strikes me as a glaring inconsistency in the pro-euthanasia movement.
May 18th, 2010 | 7:43 am
Bret Lythgoe:
You write: “…we rightly conclude that, anyone threatening suicide, MUST NECESSARILY NOT be of sound mind.”
What you really mean is that YOU are incapable of imagining any reason satisfactory to YOU that would warrant suicide. Not “we”; YOU. The assertion that a person who doesn’t share one’s own opinion about suicide (assisted or unassisted) is necessarily of unsound mind, is ITSELF indicative of an unsound mind.
May 18th, 2010 | 9:57 am
Wesley, I agree with your position on this, but when you say that pro-euthanasia advocates “will claim that opponents see suffering as ‘redemptive’ and thus desirable—intentionally misstating that doctrine”, you understate that issue. The Catholic (especially) and fundamentalist Protestant churches have a long, sorry track record of opposing palliative care and pain relief for terminal illness sufferers for that very reason: “suffering brings salvation/redemption”.
Example: Christopher Hitchens and others have noted that Mother Teresa’s operation in Calcutta was notorious for not having pain medication available to terminal cancer and AIDS victims on that very ground. Teresa herself reputedly told one such AIDS patient who was in horrible pain that the pain meant “Jesus is kissing you,” to which the patient responded something like “Then I wish He’d stop kissing me.”
Here in the US I have heard of fundamentalist Christian pharmacists who have refused to fill valid prescriptions for pain meds for cancer patients on the same grounds, even calling authorities on “suspicion” that the patient is “abusing narcotics” without contacting the patient’s doctor first. (This is an underreported story compared to the same pharmacists’ refusing to fill scripts for birth control pills or Plan B.)
The point is that too much of this kind of pain mismanagement (under- or non-treatment) has and is still going on in some circles, driven by what I would call sicko religious beliefs. It is this ongoing stupidity that the pro–assisted suicide advocates exploit to the fullest.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 11:45 am
K-Man: I am not an expert on this, but I know so many Catholic hospice professionals and have never heard one state that palliation should be withheld. I don’t trust Hitchens on M. T., he has a really angry axe to grind, but I suspect if she didn’t have pain control it is because she didn’t have the money for drugs or the doctors to prescribe. She brought people off the streets who were writhing from maggot infestation in open sores, for goodness sake! She fed them, gave them food and warmth, and made sure none died alone. Without her, those people would have died on the streets.
Calling doctors is what pharmacists are supposed to do, when in doubt. And it isn’t just Christians. I know of doctors who didn’t prescribe opioids due to fear of addiction, and it had nothing to do with faith but ignorance and not wanting to deal with the bureaucratic hassles of record keeping.
May 18th, 2010 | 12:36 pm
Second that on the story about Mother Teresa; Hitchens is positively frightening in his loathing of her. I would like to see a reliable source on any story told about her, and Hitchens is not one, IMO.
May 18th, 2010 | 6:13 pm
History Writer: You appear to have missed the point of my comments. Please read it again, carefully.
Anyone, who threatens suicide (unless things have gotten worse than I thought), is considered to be NOT of sound mind, and taken into police custody, and examined by a psychiatrist, until the latter determines that the suicide victim is no longer at risk for suicide, then the person is released. We don’t let them go through with it!
History Writer, do you believe that anyone who states that he/she wishes to commit suicide should be allowed to do so? If yes, why? If no, why?
May 18th, 2010 | 8:12 pm
Hitchens, is not trustworthy vis a vis Mother Teresa. His attack on her was without any merit. Incidently, his latest book, “god is not great”, is about as devoid of philisophical sophistication as you’re going to get.
May 19th, 2010 | 10:36 am
Bret Lythgoe: You asked whether I “believe that anyone who states that he/she wishes to commit suicide should be allowed to do so? If yes, why? If no, why?”
My answer is this: I believe the matter of “allowing” someone to commit suicide carries with it the implication that someone or some entity has authority to grant permission for it or, in the alternative, is entitled to prevent its happening. That, in turn, presupposes that this same person or entity maintains a superior claim on your life than your own.
If you are satisfied that another person has a claim on your life superior to your own, then you also admit that you are no better than a slave, and that you are without the most basic entitlement of natural law — free will.
May I ask how you justify taking the opposite position?
May 19th, 2010 | 6:16 pm
History Writer: Would you like the state to intervine, if say, your wife/husband was attempting suicide? Or would you merely conclude that she/he has a right to control her/his own body? And if you would, why the double standard?
You mention freedom. freedom presupposes that a person’s mind is functioning properly, in order to make an informed choice. It could be argued that the attempt to end your life is a result of a dysfunctional mind. You’re not doing anyone any favors by saying that have the “freedom to do something”, if they lack the judgment and reasoning, that serves as the basis for that freedom.
We have a hiearchy of rights. The right to choose is very inportant. But the right to life supercedes the right to freedom.
Why? because the right to life is the necessary right for all other rights (including, of course, the right to choose) to exist. So, if you allow someone’s life to be deprived, you’re in essence, denying them ALL other rights as well.
May 20th, 2010 | 11:34 am
Bret Lythgoe:
Since I am not anyone’s slave, MY right to MY life supercedes all other rights. I reject all religious arguments to the contrary, as is my freedom to do here in the US. MY life is MINE to dispose of as and when I wish. It is not for you to say that MY value system lacks “the judgment and reasoning, that serves as the basis for” my freedom, any more than it is for me to say the same about the choices of people who believe in the Holy Trinity, the Great Pumpkin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Suffice it to say, people WILL disagree on these matters.
The “how would you feel if …” argument is really irrelevant. Since my wife is a grown-up person and nobody’s slave, how can I support the state’s or anyone else’s intervention (including my own) in her private choices? It would most likely sadden me to lose her, but her freedom to make such a choice without unsolicited “help” from the “well-meaning” is as worthwhile as my own. To believe otherwise would be to subscribe to a double standard.
On the subject of double standards, I’ve been wondering why some of the most vocal opponents of the so-called “Nanny State” (e.g., government involvement in health insurance) are quick to support state regulation of other people’s private behavior. Do you think they sincerely believe that if something’s good for them it’s automatically as good for everyone else; or are they simply hypocrites? What do you think of this seeming inconsistency?
May 20th, 2010 | 9:22 pm
History Writer: The inference that I’ve derived, from your latest comments, is, that anyone, has the right, to kill her/himself for ANY reason, at ANY time. Also, you reject that anyone could EVER be WRONG about what’s in his/her self interests.
I’m presuming that, since you value consistency, that anyone should be able to take any drug they want as well.
I was hoping you would be inconsistent vis a vis my question of your wife “choosing” to kill herself. I bet she would be too.
So, do you believe that anyone, those suffering from depression, or delusions, or psychosis, should be allowed to kill him/herself?
I don’t think that it’s a double standard to let the government do what it’s meant to do: protect others, even from themselves. Polemical rhetoric aside, conservatives and liberals realize the government has a legitimate role to play in our lives,they just disagree to the extent.
One final question? You do, obviously, believe, (in my view, an extreme form) of personal liberty. but do you also beleive in the right to life, why or why not?
May 21st, 2010 | 6:01 am
Bret Lythgoe:
Do I believe in the right to life? Do you mean to ask whether I believe abortion should be prohibited? Or are you asking whether every person (and I mean “person” in the legal sense) has the right to make important decisions, either by themselves or by means of directive?
Of course I believe that your right to your life is as inviolable as my right to my life, and all that the right implies. In the case of abortion, since it’s impossible to determine the wishes of a fetus, the choice necessarily reverts to the next-closest individual: the mother.
In the case of Terri Schiavo I favored her husband’s position because he had legal authority as her husband to make decisions on her behalf, and (b) in the absence of a written directive a court had decided on the basis of anecdotal evidence that Mrs. Schiavo had manifested the desire not to continue living in a PVS.
What’s your position on all the things we’ve been discussing? This is a conversation, isn’t it?
HW
May 21st, 2010 | 10:16 pm
[...] Humanist Case Against Euthanasia Wesley J. Smith has written an intriguing essay entitled, The Humanist Case Against Euthanasia. [...]
May 22nd, 2010 | 7:08 am
History Writer: You stated that you believe that the right to life, for “legal” persons is ”inviolable”, which, of course, means that no one can take it away.
But, you believe that every person has a ”right” to take away her/his own life. How can this right be ”inviolable”? Do you mean it’s inviolable in all cases except, when one wishes to kill himself?
You seem, maybe I’m wrong, but you seem to believe that a person can never be wrong about his/her own interests. When I state that a person can only have freedom if he/she has proper judgment, you said that we have no right to ”impose” our views on others. But, I’m assuming that you would consider children and teen-agers as not having the proper judgment to decide whether to kill themselves?
If you do, then the same logic, i would submit, since they’re analogous, would compel you to accept that mentall ill people also do not have the judgment to decide whether to kill themselves.
That is, your position is, that, every person is in the best position possible to decide what’s in his/her best interests. This is a reasonable position. But, it presupposes that each person has proper judgment to determine what’s in his/her self interest. This would, I would assert, require you to acknowledge, at the least, that SOME people should not be allowed to kill themselves, teens and the mentally ill, at least?
So, the state does have a right to prevent, at least some people, from killing themselves. If you disagree, then why should someone’s bad judgment override the good judgment, in this case, of the state?
As for the other points you brought up, yes, of course, it’s a conversation, and I respect your views. I believe, based on sound empirical evidence, NOT based on religious premises, that the fetus has a right to life. The right to life, in my view, is number one. The right to choose, or control one’s body, is a close second. So, if the two rights are in conflict, although they’re both immensely important, I have to conclude that the right to life takes precedence.
I do not favor euthanasia. For the above reason, regarding life being the first priority. Terri Schiavo was a devout Catholic. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that she would wish to follow the Catholic Church’s teaching on euthanasia, and not allow herself to be starved and dehydrated to death. And, although it’s fair to state that most doctors believed she suffered from a persistant vegetative state, which, among other things, indicates that she is probably not conscious, other doctors believed that she suffered from a condition called minimal consciuosness. This would mean that she, at least, had some awareness. Considering that death is irreversible, it seems wise to side on the ”life” end of things. And, considering that her family was willing to care for her, for the rest of her life, we should have allowed her to live.
May 22nd, 2010 | 1:37 pm
[...] The Humanist Case against euthanasia [...]
June 4th, 2010 | 3:35 pm
My book ‘By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control and the Abortion Campaign’ (2008) provides hard information on the links that O’Neill makes between population control and euthanasia/assisted suicide. Historically the euthanasia campaign, which emerged from the Eugenics Society in 1936, wanted euthanasia to for ‘hopeless cases’ – old, young, disabled – with the emphasis on the benefits to society of killing such people, who by their situation were deemed to benefit from being removed from the world. The Nazi ‘euthansia’ programme put paid to this approach, and improvements in treatments, hospice care, etc., demolished their main argument (‘compassion’); only after the abortion campaign’s ‘right to choose’ approach did the euthanasia campaign re-invent itself on a basis of autonomy. This is proving much more successful. But the pioneers of the campaign believed there were too many people, and that improvements in medicine, etc., would only make things worse. This argument (‘finite resources, carbon footprint’, etc.) are becoming respectable once more, especially in countries with ageing populations. As I point out in my book, in a Welfare State, the poor are expensive.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact