Advertisement

The Coercive Implications of Legalization

  • Kevin Yuill

Abstract

Campaigning for a change in the law is often presented as concern for free choices. In fact, a change in the law will mean less freedom from state intrusion. In this chapter, I first show that the choice offered with the legalization of assisted suicide is illusory; analysing recent legislation in Oregon and Washington and recent legislative proposals in the UK, it is plain that doctors and courts, not patients, have a monopoly on choice with regard to assisted suicide. Today, proposals for legalization envisage ‘professionalization’ of assisted suicide administration in which experts decide on the worthiness of requests for assisted suicide, a far cry from the autonomy-based arguments — flawed as they were and still are — of the right-to-die movement in the 1970s and 1980s. When we ask doctors or judges to decide upon the legitimacy of reasons for requesting an assisted suicide, we allow them to colonize our most intimate thoughts and influence what should be the most personal decision ever made. Not only is our privacy threatened, legalizing assisted suicide would undermine the important freedom to refuse medical treatment. I end with a robust defence of the classical freedom espoused by those such as John Stuart Mill and a suggestion that might obviate the need for assisted suicide.

Keywords

Moral Responsibility Suicide Rate Liberal Democratic Party Assisted Suicide Competent Adult 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Frank Furedi, On Tolerance: The Life Style Wars: A Defence of Moral Independence (London: Continuum, 2011), p. 146.Google Scholar
  2. 7.
    Cited in Ronald B Sklar, “The ‘Capable’ Mental Health Patient’s Right to Refuse Treatment”, McGill journal of Law and Health, vol. 5, no. 2 (2011), pp. 291–293Google Scholar
  3. 11.
    Clive Seale, ‘Hastening Death in End-of-Life Care: A Survey of Doctors’, Social Science and Medicine, vol. 69, no. 11 (2009), pp. 1659–1666.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 14.
    Thomas Szasz, Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002), p. 73.Google Scholar
  5. 22.
    Daniel E. Lee, ‘Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Conservative Critique of Intervention’, The Hastings Center Report, vol. 33 (2003), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. George P. Annas and Joan Densberger, ‘Competence to Refuse Medical Treatment: Competence v. Paternalism’, University of Toledo Law Review, vol. 15 (1983–84), pp. 561–596Google Scholar
  7. 23.
    Sheila McLean, Assisted Dying: Reflections on the Need for Law Reform (London: Routledge, 2007), p. 39.Google Scholar
  8. 25.
    John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism and On Liberty, ed. Mary Warnock (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), p. 170.Google Scholar
  9. 26.
    A. Ohberg, J. Lonnqvist, S. Sarna, E. Vuori, et al., ‘Trends and Availability of Suicide Methods in Finland: Proposals for Restrictive Measures’, The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 166 (January 1995), pp. 35–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Keith Hawton et al., ‘UK Legislation on Analgesic Packs: Before and after Study of Long Term Effect on Poisonings’, British Medical Journal, vol. 329 (2004), p. 1076.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 27.
    See D. Owens and A. House, ‘Fatal and Non-fatal Repetition of Self-harm, Systematic Review’, British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 181 (2002), pp. 193–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kevin Yuill 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Yuill
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SunderlandUK

Personalised recommendations