President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
It is a widely shared principle that, as long as our actions cause no harm to others, we might all be allowed to do as we please.
And so it is that many principled people feel a visceral duty to support the right of others to choose the manner of their own passing. However, in presenting assisted death (AD) as "medical aid in dying", HB 140[1] does not merely create a liberty of permission for this purpose. Far from it!
Medical care is universally seen as a positive benefit and a human right. To define assisted death in this way is to automatically create entitlements, obligations and mandates which are entirely foreign to any fundamental notion of free choice.[2]
What is so confidently stated in the preamble to HB 140, for example, is perfectly false:
"(line 18) participation in the practice of medical aid in dying by willing medical providers (...) respects and honors each patient’s values and priorities for their own death...".In reality, there is no equivalence. In promoting the positive good of AD as medical treatment, participating doctors simply ignore the "values and priorities" of that vastly larger group of patients who will never willingly consent to assisted death, regardless of medical circumstances.[3]
One particularly heated controversy, regarding the medical interpretation of AD, concerns the permission (and even the duty) of doctors to pro-actively raise this question with eligible patients. For to be clear: the normal rules of medical practice require physicians to themselves propose optimal care (with the full weight of professional authority) subject only to patient consent. If AD is indeed considered in this way: any patient medically eligible for AD may expect to become the target of such contextually powerful suggestions of suicide, at any time, depending solely upon the personal bias of particular professionals.
Nor does HB 140 leave us in any doubt about the reality of this threat:
"§ 2513C. (a) A person acting in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted health-care standards is not subject to civil or criminal liability or to discipline for unprofessional conduct for ... (3) Providing scientific and accurate information about medication to end life in a humane and dignified manner. "On reflection, it is absurd to expect that participating physicians might be appropriate carers for the non-suicidal majority. For we are in the presence of two mutually exclusive clinical visions, as shown by the Hippocratic revolution 2500 years ago: Assisted death cannot be "added" to traditional medicine, any more than meat can be "added" to a vegetarian diet!
On this subject, HB 140 (again we believe falsely) states: (Preamble line 6)
"in other jurisdictions, the integration of medical aid in dying into the standard for end of life care has improved quality of services by providing an additional palliative care option to terminally ill individuals".But we do not have far to go in seeking contrary evidence. If we look to our Northern neighbor where the term "MAID" first appeared in legislation (Province of Quebec, Canada, 2014),[4] we see exactly how such a medically justified regime of assisted death is destined to unfold. Indeed, Canadian hospitals, and care teams have normalized AD, to such an extent, that eligible patients are now obliged to navigate a clinical environment which has become objectively indifferent (if not hostile) to their continued survival.[5]
Very obviously, no coherent system of individual liberty might ever have produced such a result.
Most certainly, also, a principled defense of death-by-choice does not require liberty-minded citizens to espouse this extreme theory of death-as-medical-care. Both Switzerland[6] and Germany[7], recognize a general right to suicide (including assisted suicide) but also refuse to accord such actions any objective validation (medical or otherwise), precisely to avoid the effects of entitlements, mandates and obligations as described above.[8]
In conclusion, therefore: Although I am personally opposed to any assisted death whatsoever, I also recognize that a sincere philosophy of "live-and-let-live" might indeed inspire principled support for death-by-choice. But not with just any Bill. And certainly not with this one! The naturally non-suicidal majority of eligible patients must not be confronted, in their moment of greatest need, with the promotion of assisted death as medical treatment. Normal medicine must be kept clear --by default-- of any AD related practice.
With the greatest respect, I request the defeat of this legislation.
Gordon Friesen, President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, January 27, 2025
[1] Delaware House Bill 140, as of January 2025 (An Act to Amend Title 16 of the Delaware Code Relating to End of Life Options) https://www.legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=141725&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB140
[2] Constitution of the World Health Organization (1946) as amended (2005) accessed April 17, 2024 https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf?ua=1 accessed April 17, 2024
[3] Friesen, Gordon, The Medical Slope of Assisted Death: From "Who May" to "Who Should", Psychiatric Times, January 3, 2025 https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/the-medical-slope-of-assisted-death-from-who-may-to-who-should
[4] "Act Respecting End-of-Life Care" Province of Quebec, Canada, 2014, as revised 2024 https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/s-32.0001 accessed April 17, 2024
[5] Friesen, G.R., Lessons from the Canadian Euthanasia Experiment, EuthanasiaDiscussion.com https://euthanasiadiscussion.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/lessons_from_the_canadian_euthanasia_experiment_april_4_2023_gordon_friesen.pdf accessed April 17, 2024
[6] Swiss criminal code art. 115 https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/en#art_115 accessed Nov 4, 2023
[7] German High Court decision, Criminalisation of assisted suicide services unconstitutional February 26, 2020 https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/bvg20-012.html accessed Oct 28, 2023
[8] Friesen, G.R., Fundamental Considerations in the Creation of a Minimally Intrusive Liberty of Assisted Death, EuthanasiaDiscussion.com (produced for the Irish Joint Committee on Assisted Dying), November 12, 2023, https://euthanasiadiscussion.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/minimally_intrusive_liberty_of_assisted_death_gordon_friesen_nov_12_2023.pdf accessed April 17, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment