A duty to die

A Duty to Die

\r\n One of the biggest concerns for disabled rights organisations is that, if euthanasia is legalised, the 'right to die' will soon become a 'duty to die.'

Many disabled are not ready to die, they enjoy life and wish to continue to do so but if assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia were available they might feel it was the responsible thing to do. Caregivers might consciously or unconsciously exert pressure to help them arrive at that decision.

A person who feels obligated to do away with themselves for the good of others may become depressed during which time these feelings may intensify and become the main priority of the patient. In time however these feelings may pass by which time a patient may have already taken steps which are irrevocable.

Voluntary Euthanasia today = Involuntary Euthanasia tomorrow
Many disability advocates take the position that legalising assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia today will lead to active involuntary euthanasia tomorrow.



He believes that in the future the responsibility will fall upon the individual to chose death even when that individual may prefer to live. This duty to die will be tied in with a person's self-respect and it will be seen as the right choice for the good of an individual's family and society as a whole. The elderly and disabled may well find they are urged into this action because they are seen as giving up less than other individuals.

Hardwig does offer a glimmer of hope however, he states that if society is willing to "pay for facilities that provide excellent long-term care (not just health care) for all chronically ill, debilitated, mentally ill or demented people in this country ... the duty to die would then be virtually eliminated."

He tempers this with these cautionary words though "we Americans seem to be unwilling to pay for this kind of long-term care, except for ourselves and our own." So therefore there would need to be some fundamental change in the statutes of law to uphold the right of life for every human being.

Before Mr. McAfee could take his own life [following court approval], he was offered a place in an independent living project for disabled people. He took that option and began working towards getting a job...it was not his disability but his living conditions that were making him want to die. "

Submission to the Voluntary - Euthanasia Select Committee - House of Keys Isle of Man

Alison Jones in a submission to the Committee states "The lack of options for many disabled people was made clear by the case of Larry McAfee, an American quadriplegic, who used a ventilator, and had been living in a succession of nursing homes and hospitals.

He requested that his ventilator be turned off, and the judge hearing the case commented ?Mr. McAfee is not committing suicide...his ventilator would not prolong his life but instead would prolong his death.' In other words he was expressing the opinion that life for a disabled person is tantamount to death.

Before Mr. McAfee could take his own life, he was offered a place in an independent living project for disabled people. He took that option and began working towards getting a job. Euthanasia would have robbed him of life before it could be shown that it was not his disability but his living conditions that were making him want to die.

Many disabled people fear their rights will be undermined and their wish to remain alive will ignored by changes in euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation. Not only that but the quality of life will diminish for those who are disabled as there will increasing discrimination towards them.

The case of Sue Maynard-Campbell who uses a wheelchair and is Vice-Chair of an NHS Trust in Britain is also cited in the submission. She fears there will be a culture of "better off dead" towards the disabled. In hospital for a chest infection she found the words "Do Not Resuscitate" written on her medical notes. Her doctor had made the decision she had a "poor quality of life". She is now afraid to go back to that hospital.

Not only would there be a ?duty to die,' claim the No Less Human group, but the disabled group would become more vulnerable if euthanasia were legal.

Wesley J. Smith, a lawyer for the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force describes in Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America how developments in the field of bioethics have fostered a "culture of death" in the United States.

He provides many examples to illustrate the "quickly developing ethical crisis in a medical world that increasingly devalues some human lives and views people at the margins as expendable. Traditional morality and medical ethics are crumbling before our very eyes."

Smith makes his case by explaining how the "right to die" has indeed morphed into a "duty to die" in the minds of many health care professionals who have abandoned the Hippocratic Oath.

Individual autonomy has increasingly given way to decision-making by health care professionals and bioethicists, whose "futile care theory" measures the value of human life according to the financial cost of keeping the individual alive.

We are now in the unenviable position where doctors and hospital staff make medical decisions contrary to the wishes and protests of individuals and their families, not in order to save life, but to end it.

One of the more disturbing cases Smith relates is that of Marjorie Nighbert, who was dehydrated to death in a Florida nursing home in 1995 despite her pleas for food and water. She had suffered a stroke that left her unable to swallow, and her brother, who had power of attorney, had her feeding tube removed.

A judge refused to override this decision, so Nighbert died, pleading for help.

Smith's work shows that support for euthanasia is strong among bioethicists and the practice of euthanasia is already fairly widespread in American hospitals.

Duty to Kill

Not only would there be a ?duty to die,' claim the No Less Human group, but the disabled group would become more vulnerable if euthanasia were legal. This group fear that discrimination would become common and be supported by medical practitioners whose judgements about their negative quality of life of some would have an invalidating impact on them all. Their lives would be seen to be of less worth than someone who was not disabled.

In the UK, doctors have the won the right to withdraw food and water from a patient, without needing permission from family members, unless the person has a living will stating they don't want food and water withdrawn.

In Holland where euthanasia is legal many people now carry ?anti-euthanasia passports' because they are afraid they may be killed if admitted to hospital.