In the nine states/jurisdictions in which medical assistance in dying (MAID) is allowed through legislation or referendum, the insistence on extensive safeguards has served less to protect vulnerable individuals than to limit access to MAID.
Slippery slope arguments deny rationality, moral precepts, and legal principles. Few of us who believe in a right to die go beyond the formulation of this right as a voluntary decision of one person about that person's life. The view that no one has the right to take from us the liberty to make such decisions to end our lives except ourselves appears to be the norm in this society for those who are near the end of their lives because of disease or condition. Voluntariness is inextricably bound up with the decision to die to escape suffering near the end of life.
Not only is Canada further advanced than all states in the US with respect to Medical Aid In Dying (MAID or MAiD), it also has surpassed the US for those who want to Voluntarily Stop Eating and Drinking.
This post looks critically at the view that Medical Aid In Dying (MAID) is not a human right.
Compassion & Choices is trying to do more for those with a dementia diagnosis through a new online "Dementia Values & Priorities Tool." This post is the first part of an exploration of C&C's approach to dementia advance planning.
If we use "existential suffering" as a stand-in for all of the related terms we use, it will help us discuss what we may mean by them. Certainly, distress, dread, angst, anxiety, anguish, or crisis all suggest suffering at least in a mental or psychological sense, a kind of suffering that all people encounter at one point or another in their lives, or even daily. Some existential suffering can be mitigated through changes in circumstances or with the help of others, but when one is dying, whether slowly or rapidly, one may wish to forego the suffering whether or not there may be temporary relief for it.
Lamar Hankins discusses how the disabled are devalued and prevented from having the same rights non-disabled people have. What a person considers a fulfilling life should be decided by each person, not by the opinion of any other person, including by someone who is disabled.
Lamar Hankins shares his notes taken from a lecture by Professor Thaddeus Pope, who spoke on the topic "Avoiding Advanced Dementia with a VSED Directive" for the Hemlock Society of San Diego.
In this third part of a series analyzing the arguments against medical-assistance-in-dying (MAID) by opponents of physician-assistance in hastening a person's death in the face of a terminal illness, Lamar Hankins looks at a major reference for most MAID opposition articles – a 2008 Michigan Law Review article, "Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective," by psychiatrist Herbert Hendin and neurologist Kathleen Foley. Both oppose what they term "assisted suicide."
In Part 1 of this series, I addressed ten criticisms of MAID laws, particularly those in Oregon and Washington, though most such laws are modeled largely on Oregon's law. In Part 2, I look at criticisms of MAID laws concerning economic pressures, coercion, depression, inadequate resources for MAID clients, doctor shopping, inadequate Medicaid rules, ableism, and the failure of the drugs prescribed to MAID clients. My hope is that we can learn from opponents of MAID laws how to make the laws better.
