How to Sell Assisted Suicide the Right Way

 

Several states, including Massachusetts and Delaware, are now actively considering measures that would legalize assisted suicide, joining the five states and the District of Columbia that have already done so. As always, however, various sticks in the mud (such as certain religious organizations and disabled-rights groups) are doing their best to stand in the way. So progress has been slower than many enlightened people had hoped.

Worse, in advocating for assisted suicide, it is the very organizations who stand to benefit the most from it — the third-party payers — who are doing the most harm to the cause. Indeed, it is likely that unless the insurance companies and government agencies that pay for healthcare get their acts together, assisted suicide — even if fully legalized — will never reach the potential its advocates hope for.

The most classic example of public relations malfeasance in this regard occurred in 2008, when the Oregon Health Plan injudiciously sent a letter to lung-cancer patient Barbara Wagner denying coverage for the expensive chemotherapy her doctor had recommended, and offering instead to cover palliative care “including doctor-assisted suicide.”

The national firestorm of outrage triggered by this letter penetrated even the dulled sensibilities of the Oregon insurance executives. Very belatedly, a spokesman for the Oregon Health Plan admitted to ABC News that “the letter to Wagner was “a public relations blunder and something the state is ‘working on.’””

The Oregon Plan executives were obviously blindsided by the strong reaction against their ham-fisted denial letter. Denial letters, after all, routinely list (as an aid to the patient) services which the insurance company judges to be reasonable alternatives to the denied care. While in this case the denied service offered some reasonable hope for prolonged survival, while the service being offered as an alternative (to say the least) did not, that’’s really not so much different from the content of more “routine” denial letters. The difference is one of degree, and not of substance. So, the executives apparently assumed, the letter should have been perfectly fine.

The executives must have been particularly disheartened to learn that even vocal proponents of physician-assisted suicide widely criticized their ill-considered denial letter. To so blatantly juxtapose healthcare rationing with the “option” of assisted suicide seriously undermines the chief argument advanced publicly by the end-of-life movement, namely, that assisted suicide is primarily an individual autonomy play, and not primarily a cost-saving mechanism. Even these advanced thinkers agreed that the letter was unseemly. The 2008 Oregon Plan denial letter was catastrophic in every way, and to this day is held up as an example of the kinds of injustices assisted suicide will bring with it.

And so, –as a public service to insurance executives in both the government and the private sector who are severely challenged by trying to understand simple human emotions, to patients like Ms. Wagner who may suffer true physical harm by exposure to such institutional callousness, and to the rest of us who simply would appreciate not being confronted so blatantly by the dark abyss that underlies our healthcare system, I hereby offer some friendly advice to health plans on the right way to sell physician-assisted suicide.

I propose a simple, six-point plan:

1) Don’t Be So Anxious.

Sure it’s easy to get excited about physician-assisted suicide. Just look at your own data. A ’huge proportion of your spending goes to patients who are in the last year of life. Enticing these end-of-lifers to choose assisted suicide (which you can accomplish in a sufficiently tasteful way for about $100) is such an attractive proposition that it’ is indeed very hard to make yourself appear reasonably circumspect about it. At the very least, it’’s difficult not to push the idea out there to your subscribers. Otherwise, how can you be sure they know all their options for end-of-life care?

But doing even that much is a mistake. Simply look at the national outrage the Oregon Health Plan unleashed with their simple and helpful “reminder” letter to Ms. Wagner. It should be clear that for a health plan to seem overly interested in assisted suicide, or even to mention the option to their subscribers, is a potentially counterproductive idea.

2) Publicly Disown Assisted Suicide.

Think about Tom Sawyer whitewashing the picket fence. Ol’ Tom didn’’t get all his friends to paint that fence for him by asking for their help, or by overtly selling or cajoling them on the idea. Instead, he got them to do the job by pretending he wasn’’t the least bit interested in having them do it, by ignoring them altogether, and making himself seem completely absorbed in the delightful task. By the time Tom was done, his friends were all begging for a turn, and even giving him wondrous gifts (such as dead cats on a string) to bribe him for a chance to participate.

What you need to do is pretend that encouraging assisted suicide, even if it’s a legal and covered service that patients ought to be made aware of, –is the farthest thing from your mind. Instead, you are completely invested in and insistent upon providing full-service end-of-life care, with all the bells and whistles and no holds barred; and –(while patients, of course, have the option to exercise their individual autonomy as they see fit) –you take great pride in squeezing every last instant of life out of those elderly, used-up, chronically ill bodies that present themselves in your ICU, no matter what the cost to the patient and family in terms of pain, suffering, humiliation and anguish. It is your mission to stave off death to the bitter end, come what may, and you’’re proud of it.

3) Have Somebody Else Push It.

In the meantime, clear the path for agencies and interest groups dedicated to the end-of-life movement. There are plenty of them out there. Have them do the selling for you.

Make sure they have access to your patients and patients’’ families, especially in the ICU setting. Allow them space for educational displays; provide them some private space where they can talk to interested patients and families; see that hospital social workers are aware of their presence. In the meantime, make it clear you do not endorse or encourage their efforts, and indeed wish they would go away, but are providing such groups with access in the interest of full transparency and your dedication to patient choice. If patients choose to avail themselves of such information it’s none of your doing, but you will do nothing to stop them.

4) Make the Advantages Of Assisted Suicide Seem Real.

There’’s no need for you to talk up the advantages of assisted suicide; –let the end-of-life proselytizers do the talking for you. All you have to do is to make their arguments seem accurate. The great part is, that’s just a matter of maintaining business as usual.

The end-of-life zealots will tell patients that assisted suicide is a way of asserting some measure of control over the dying process, of holding on to some level of personal dignity at the very end. So simply make sure your end-of-life care continues robbing patients of any semblance of dignity and control.

They’ll tell patients that assisted suicide will end pain and discomfort and suffering when all hope of recovery is gone. So simply continue with inadequate pain control, and half-hearted comfort measures, and keep the ICU as hectic, loud, scary and impersonal as possible.

They’ll tell patients that assisted suicide will finally bring comfort to their long-suffering family and friends. So make sure family and friends suffer long, by keeping those ICU waiting rooms hot, cramped, noisy, uncomfortable and smelly.

You get the idea. Simply make sure the arguments of the end-of-life advocates have teeth. You’’re good at that.

5) Tell Patients To Consult With Their Doctors Before Making This Important Choice.

That’’s right. Refer patients to their doctors, their supposed personal advocates, the selfsame individuals you yourself have long since fatally compromised (by grabbing control of their professional viability). Assuming you have placed sufficient cost-cutting pressures on your doctors, then their willingness to encourage (or at least not discourage) assisted suicide will blossom. So when patients do consult with their doctors, the doctors will not undermine your subtle efforts, but will be your partners in convincing those approaching end-of-life to just be reasonable.

6) Make Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal, But Not Reimbursable.

If all you do is follow Points 1 – 5, you will be successful. But Point 6 will take you to a whole new level. Not surprisingly, this is the most difficult and least intuitive step. But just think about it.

You’re going for the Botox model here. You do not want physician-assisted suicide to be merely another hush-hush medical procedure, conducted quietly and almost secretly in a typical hospital room, so that people can pretend it doesn’’t exist. Rather, you want to establish it as something that’s front and center, something people will want and ask for and go out of their way to seek. You want to encourage doctors to establish inventive business models for assisted suicide, just as dermatologists have done for Botox clinics.

And as is the case with Botox injections, making assisted suicide a destination service will require you to NOT allow it to become a widely reimbursable medical service. For once it’s made reimbursable, it will become encased in all the price controls, policies, processes, and procedures that hamstring and stifle every other medical service. And you will severely limit the possibilities.

Just consider those possibilities: One envisions physician-assisted suicide becoming established as a “valued life-cycle event,” like a wedding or Bar Mitzvah, where the right atmosphere, the right spirituality, and the right tone come together to create an unforgettable, uplifting experience for everyone. Some assisted suicides will always take place in a medical facility, of course, but why not in a place of worship, a favorite city, a resort, a mountain top, a rocky coast, a casino? Why not allow the prospective decedent to actually hear the eulogies and experience the tearful tributes before actually engaging (ritually) in the Act? Why not partner with the deathcare industry to wrap this final healthcare service into a comprehensive package, including the pre-mortem memorials and post-mortem funeral services? Why not engage American media to celebrate this new lifestyle event with a new mode of reality TV shows (which are sure to garner a massive share of viewers)? Why not convert what is today an antiseptic, impersonal and frightening process into one that makes everybody say, “Yes! That’s the way to go!”

The beauty is that this sort of model will convert what is today, at best, merely the option for assisted suicide into something that’s expected — a true destination event, a natural part of life. Indeed, not opting for assisted suicide, at a certain point in one’s life, will come to be seen as being unreasonable, greedy and selfish. And when granny begins to spend more time in a doctor’s office, or (worse) in a hospital where frequent visitation is expected (and other family inconveniences are generated), some loving grandchild will pat her precious wrinkled hand, and say, “”Granny, you know, it’s getting to be about that time. Wouldn’’t a last wonderful weekend in Vegas be just the thing?””

Ten years ago the Oregon Health Plan demonstrated for the world how not to market assisted suicide services. Now that assisted suicide is finally becoming an option for many more Americans, take that lesson to heart. If you play your cards right this thing can really become big for you.

You are welcome.

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 68 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    If you think about it assisted suicide is only fair.  Pick a number, say 70.  Why should anybody get more life than that?  Let’s be honest.  Mostly the rich live beyond that age because of their better access to healthcare, nutrition and work environments.  Capping the age at 70 and pushing people toward assisted suicide at the same age would be a way to force equality on the population, especially the rich and a way to limit costs needed by the youth.  It could be would as your moral duty to be fair to the human race.

    • #31
  2. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    So I was wondering, if doctors are so compromised, should I have people hold my doctor’s family at gunpoint so that he will give me good advice?  @drrich if the doctor is going to sell me out to the insurance company, maybe the thought that my associates will destroy everything  he loves if I buy the farm might concentrate his mind.  Or perhaps a car bomb?

    It’s kind of the M.A.D. approach to medical care.  You could toss me into the euthanization room, but same good bye to family first.

    • #32
  3. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Since we are a nation that celebrates abortion it only seems natural to celebrate this.

    Of course! Just name it “really late term abortion” and people will love it!

    • #33
  4. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Since we are a nation that celebrates abortion it only seems natural to celebrate this.

    Of course! Just name it “really late term abortion” and people will love it!

    283 trimester abortion.

    • #34
  5. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):
    Or maybe something more direct: Run out of bread? You’re better off dead!

    “Drop dead. Here’s $100!”

    Which part seizes one’s attention reveals an optimist or a pessimist.

    • #35
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):
    Or maybe something more direct: Run out of bread? You’re better off dead!

    Whatever happened to “Better dead than red?”

    Our was it the other way around?

    • #36
  7. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I’m guessing that saying stuff like this doesn’t help

    “If you’re a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your [CoC] guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out…”

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/dilberts-scott-adams-wishes-a-long-horri

    I sympathize with Scott Adams’ angry passion regarding his father’s slow, painful death. I also sympathize with the father of the abused Olympic athletes who rushed the perpetrator in the courtroom. However, we (so far) have based most of our our laws on principles other than satisfying the acute passions of the victims, or their loved ones.

    There are many aspects of Mr. Adams’ outburst I could discuss here. Let me just say that the implied dichotomy — either unrelenting suffering, or death at the hands of the physician — is a false one. Another approach is to discuss with the suffering patient and loved ones the option of increasing narcotics, gradually, as high as necessary, to the point where pain is adequately controlled, with the understanding that respiratory arrest might occur before that goal is reached. So the goal is to relieve pain, not to cause death — but causing death might in fact be the result.

    This is not assisted suicide, it is the practice of medicine. It is taking a measured and known risk, with full disclosure, in pursuit of a legitimate medical goal. It is not qualitatively different from trying a new, dangerous, aggressive type of chemotherapy for a small chance of halting the spread of a cancer — the chance of benefit is low, the chance of harm is pretty high, but it is still a reasonable and ethical choice.

    One problem with the assisted suicide lobby is that they present the choice as the false dichotomy which Mr. Adams seems to have endorsed. Of course, once assisted suicide is legal and accepted by all the dichotomy will no longer be false. If you’re suffering, either you can continue to suffer, or we will kindly usher you off this mortal coil.

    • #37
  8. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    So I was wondering, if doctors are so compromised, should I have people hold my doctor’s family at gunpoint so that he will give me good advice? @drrich if the doctor is going to sell me out to the insurance company, maybe the thought that my associates will destroy everything he loves if I buy the farm might concentrate his mind. Or perhaps a car bomb?

    It’s kind of the M.A.D. approach to medical care. You could toss me into the euthanization room, but same good bye to family first.

    Vendetta medicine — an interesting concept indeed.

    My dear @OmegaPaladin, you can be angry if you like, but for your own self-preservation you should understand how the practice of medicine works today. Long ago — decades — the third party payers gained control of doctors’ professional viability. If doctors don’t keep the payers happy, they have to go off and become deep sea fishermen.

    By the turn of the millennium, realizing that their professional ethics (to always advocate solely for their individual patients) were no longer tenable, doctors rose up as a group — and changed their ethics. In 2002, doctors themselves formally adopted a new ethical precept — to advocate for “social justice,” that is, for the fair distribution of medical resources.

    This new precept made the practice of covert bedside rationing, into which they had been coerced, ethically laudible.

    If this means to you that you ought to take the doctor’s dog hostage, so be it. Many find it more fruitful to always be skeptical, to learn everything they can about their medical conditions and all the options they may have (which is much easier than it was 20 years ago), to challenge their doctor’s advice, and to get several opinions if things aren’t making sense.

    Or, you can hire a doctor you pay for yourself (like @DocJay), and let him/her assist you in navigating the morass.

    • #38
  9. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    If you think about it assisted suicide is only fair. Pick a number, say 70. Why should anybody get more life than that?

    The number has been picked, by the guy who wrote most of Obamacare. It’s 75.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

    • #39
  10. HankMorgan Inactive
    HankMorgan
    @HankMorgan

    • #40
  11. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    DrRich (View Comment):

    DocJay (View Comment):
    Brilliant.

    You’ve also given me a new idea. End of Life Clinic (TM). 50-100 K to do a soul in. Like the man on the spent battlefield of corpses in Les Mis,”I smell profit here”.

    Let’s become partners.

    An annex to a Vegas wedding chapel comes to mind.

    • #41
  12. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Muleskinner (View Comment):

    Green? As in Soylent Green?

    The first step down that road is alkaline hydrolysis, aka biocremation, resomation, flameless cremation, or water cremation. Think a giant pressure cooker full of lye and water, followed by neutralization of the residual alkalinity.

    True, there will be a bit (or if the departed was fat, more than a bit) of soap in the stuff, which might have awkward associations. But there are opportunities.

    Since “[t]he process was originally developed as a method to process animal carcasses into plant food,” that seems the likely outcome. It’s still a bit crass just to flush the residue down the drain, and much more twee to offer the choice of take home for your own garden (“Wonderful tomatos.” “Yes, that’s Uncle Fred”) or donate to the city parks.

    Using the stuff as nutrients for mycoprotein production will likely have to wait a while.

    • #42
  13. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):

    Time for the “Soul-In,” Granny! Mood music, catering, cash bar.

    Here’s some music

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCkBIWRG2mg

    • #43
  14. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Muleskinner (View Comment):

    Green? As in Soylent Green?

    The first step down that road is alkaline hydrolysis, aka biocremation, resomation, flameless cremation, or water cremation. Think a giant pressure cooker full of lye and water, followed by neutralization of the residual alkalinity.

    True, there will be a bit (or if the departed was fat, more than a bit) of soap in the stuff, which might have awkward associations. But there are opportunities.

    Since “[t]he process was originally developed as a method to process animal carcasses into plant food,” that seems the likely outcome. It’s still a bit crass just to flush the residue down the drain, and much more twee to offer the choice of take home for your own garden (“Wonderful tomatos.” “Yes, that’s Uncle Fred”) or donate to the city parks.

    Using the stuff as nutrients for mycoprotein production will likely have to wait a while.

    While these are all laudable ideas, I hold with simple burial, as burial advances one of the chief goals of mankind, namely, carbon sequestration.

    • #44
  15. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    DrRich (View Comment):
    While these are all laudable ideas, I hold with simple burial, as burial advances one of the chief goals of mankind, namely, carbon sequestration.

    Gotta do away with embalming, though. Leaks into the water table.

    DrRich (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Muleskinner (View Comment):

    Green? As in Soylent Green?

    The first step down that road is alkaline hydrolysis, aka biocremation, resomation, flameless cremation, or water cremation. Think a giant pressure cooker full of lye and water, followed by neutralization of the residual alkalinity.

    True, there will be a bit (or if the departed was fat, more than a bit) of soap in the stuff, which might have awkward associations. But there are opportunities.

    Since “[t]he process was originally developed as a method to process animal carcasses into plant food,” that seems the likely outcome. It’s still a bit crass just to flush the residue down the drain, and much more twee to offer the choice of take home for your own garden (“Wonderful tomatos.” “Yes, that’s Uncle Fred”) or donate to the city parks.

    Using the stuff as nutrients for mycoprotein production will likely have to wait a while.

    While these are all laudable ideas, I hold with simple burial, as burial advances one of the chief goals of mankind, namely, carbon sequestration.

    And here I thought you had a modest proposal.

    • #45
  16. Richard Finlay Inactive
    Richard Finlay
    @RichardFinlay

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    If you think about it assisted suicide is only fair. Pick a number, say 70. Why should anybody get more life than that? Let’s be honest. Mostly the rich live beyond that age because of their better access to healthcare, nutrition and work environments. Capping the age at 70 and pushing people toward assisted suicide at the same age would be a way to force equality on the population, especially the rich and a way to limit costs needed by the youth. It could be would as your moral duty to be fair to the human race.

    It would make Social Security viable again!

    • #46
  17. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    DrRich (View Comment):
    While these are all laudable ideas, I hold with simple burial, as burial advances one of the chief goals of mankind, namely, carbon sequestration.

    I must have been sleeping when carbon sequestration became one o mankind’s chief goals.

    • #47
  18. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    If you think about it assisted suicide is only fair. Pick a number, say 70. Why should anybody get more life than that? Let’s be honest. Mostly the rich live beyond that age because of their better access to healthcare, nutrition and work environments. Capping the age at 70 and pushing people toward assisted suicide at the same age would be a way to force equality on the population, especially the rich and a way to limit costs needed by the youth. It could be would as your moral duty to be fair to the human race.

    It would make Social Security viable again!

    It would be the biggest best assisted suicide program in the country.  I can see Trump selling it.

    • #48
  19. Joe P Member
    Joe P
    @JoeP

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    DrRich (View Comment):
    While these are all laudable ideas, I hold with simple burial, as burial advances one of the chief goals of mankind, namely, carbon sequestration.

    I must have been sleeping when carbon sequestration became one o mankind’s chief goals.

    Peoplekind. It is a goal of peoplekind.

    And it’s not carbon sequestration that is the goal, but sustainable living. Carbon sequestration just happens to be a means to attain that goal, given the global threat of climate change.

    When the Life Sustainability Centers are finally opened, they should include section on reading material to raise awareness of other ways people can help improve the planet before they achieve dignity, such as how to help make the change to steady-state economics.

    • #49
  20. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    It’s hard to tell, but from the other comments I gather this was satire.  Lordy, I hope so.

    • #50
  21. ShawnB Inactive
    ShawnB
    @ShawnB

    There is no way to make this practice civilized.  It is a rejection of God in its essence.  It is not conservative or libertarian, it is barbaric.

    • #51
  22. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    DrRich (View Comment):
    While these are all laudable ideas, I hold with simple burial, as burial advances one of the chief goals of mankind, namely, carbon sequestration

    Khrushchev was an environmentalist: “We will bury you!”

    • #52
  23. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Look on the bright side of assisted suicide. Think of the money we’ll save in all this unnecessary medical research.

    IF we’re going end suffering, by ending the sufferers why should we know more about medical miracles than we already do?

    • #53
  24. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    Skyler (View Comment):
    It’s hard to tell, but from the other comments I gather this was satire. Lordy, I hope so.

    Lordy, I hope so too.

    • #54
  25. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    Look on the bright side of assisted suicide. Think of the money we’ll save in all this unnecessary medical research.

    IF we’re going end suffering, by ending the sufferers why should we know more about medical miracles than we already do?

    Always look on the bright side of death…Everyone sing along!

    • #55
  26. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I’m guessing that saying stuff like this doesn’t help

    “If you’re a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your [CoC] guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out…”

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/dilberts-scott-adams-wishes-a-long-horri

    Doesn’t the offer to “kill you personally” kind of undermine the desire that “you die a long, horrible death”?

    • #56
  27. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    Doesn’t the offer to “kill you personally” kind of undermine the desire that “you die a long, horrible death”?

    This is emotion, not logic, that is at work.

    • #57
  28. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    DrRich (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I’m guessing that saying stuff like this doesn’t help

    “If you’re a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your [CoC] guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out…”

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/dilberts-scott-adams-wishes-a-long-horri

    I sympathize with Scott Adams’ angry passion regarding his father’s slow, painful death. I also sympathize with the father of the abused Olympic athletes who rushed the perpetrator in the courtroom. However, we (so far) have based most of our our laws on principles other than satisfying the acute passions of the victims, or their loved ones.

    There are many aspects of Mr. Adams’ outburst I could discuss here. Let me just say that the implied dichotomy — either unrelenting suffering, or death at the hands of the physician — is a false one. Another approach is to discuss with the suffering patient and loved ones the option of increasing narcotics, gradually, as high as necessary, to the point where pain is adequately controlled, with the understanding that respiratory arrest might occur before that goal is reached. So the goal is to relieve pain, not to cause death — but causing death might in fact be the result.

    This is not assisted suicide, it is the practice of medicine. It is taking a measured and known risk, with full disclosure, in pursuit of a legitimate medical goal. It is not qualitatively different from trying a new, dangerous, aggressive type of chemotherapy for a small chance of halting the spread of a cancer — the chance of benefit is low, the chance of harm is pretty high, but it is still a reasonable and ethical choice.

    One problem with the assisted suicide lobby is that they present the choice as the false dichotomy which Mr. Adams seems to have endorsed. Of course, once assisted suicide is legal and accepted by all the dichotomy will no longer be false. If you’re suffering, either you can continue to suffer, or we will kindly usher you off this mortal coil.

    This is what I was looking for. A reasonable alternative, though there might still be marginal cases that this solution wouldn’t quite fit. Even so, we might have to get the government off its current obsession with opioids and whatnot. Government, the cause of and “solution” to all of life’s problems.

    As dangerous as the logic behind legal suicide can seem, I can’t help but feel that the fact that we own ourselves gives us the right to do what we want with ourselves, even if we shouldn’t do that thing. In order to be virtuous, you must have an option. And this is coming from someone who thinks we need to put serious effort into ending the disease of aging, because no one should have to die.

    • #58
  29. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    Mike H (View Comment):
    As dangerous as the logic behind legal suicide can seem, I can’t help but feel that the fact that we own ourselves gives us the right to do what we want with ourselves, even if we shouldn’t do that thing. In order to be virtuous, you must have an option.

    I believe you are correct here. When a person decides to commit suicide and really means it, it is impossible to stop them. That’s an option we could not remove even if we wanted to.

    In any case, making an ethical objection to assisted suicide is no longer permissible. Most ethicists have deemed it (along with euthanasia, and for that matter involuntary euthanasia) to be perfectly justifiable under the right conditions (as deemed by appropriate authorities). Indeed, they will tell us that withholding it when it is justifiable is itself unethical. If we disagree we are science deniers.

    But even if you agree that assisted suicide is ethical, you should still object to physician-assisted suicide, at least under our current healthcare system. The last thing we should do, given our covert rationing paradigm, is to institutionalize assisted suicide as part of standard medical practice, and make it just one more routine clinical option like having a facelift. The economics of assisted suicide, for the payers and anyone they control (like the doctors), are so drastically in favor of quick, cheap death that anyone who believes it will not be abused is not a student of human nature. (In other words, they’re a Progressive.)

    If assisted suicide is to be a thing, and if the ethicists insist it is perfectly OK, then I say let the ethicists do the assisting. I have relatively little to say about ethicist-assisted suicide. But leave the doctors out of it.

    • #59
  30. Eeyore Member
    Eeyore
    @Eeyore

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I’m guessing that saying stuff like this doesn’t help

    “If you’re a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your [CoC] guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out…”

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/dilberts-scott-adams-wishes-a-long-horri

    Doesn’t the offer to “kill you personally” kind of undermine the desire that “you die a long, horrible death”?

    I understand Scott Adams has a personal affinity for bamboo gardens

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.