> how do you protect the people who don't want to go, being pressured or manipulated. I agree that if someone is really, independently and committedly deciding to go, you shouldn't stop them. But how do you express that test in a bureaucratic, legalistic framework?
I would look into countries where euthanasia has been already implemented. It doesn't seem like it's a widespread problem, so apparently they made it work somehow.
Does it mean it's absolutely bulletproof and no-one will ever be pressured to undergo euthanasia? No, but you can't ever achieve such certainty, and it's better to look at it from the utilitarianism view - allowing euthanasia will prevent much more suffering than it will cause.
> I would look into countries where euthanasia has been already implemented.
That's what puts me off of the idea in the first place. Cases like Christine Gauthier (a former army corporal and paralympian) who was offered euthanasia when trying to seek government disability benefits to install a wheelchair ramp. If it takes someone with existing fame to speak out about this, how many more people has this been pushed on?
> from the utilitarianism view - allowing euthanasia will prevent much more suffering than it will cause.
I'm not totally convinced. I haven't run the numbers, and this also certainly takes into account my personal views on valuing life and family, but I do fear more pain and suffering will come with legal euthanasia than it will solve.
Just look at the end of the article. It gives several examples of the kind of thing that allows me as a utilitarian to say that the suffering of a few terminally ill is not as bad as the harassment of countless vulnerable people.
Should we keep medical assistance in dying illegal because bad eggs offer it outside the legal framework of their job in bad faith?
The Christine Gauthier case is used to justify the idea that the government will use it to reduce spending, when what happened to her is appalling, but was absolutely not something the government employee that offered it to her had the legal permission to do so.
What the Quebec law regarding medical assistance in dying does is guarantee its existence as a medical act. It does not allow any low-level government employee to offer it wily-nily to anyone. It is a medical act, reserved to doctors, to discuss assistance in dying.
> Just look at the end of the article. It gives several examples of the kind of thing that allows me as a utilitarian to say that the suffering of a few terminally ill is not as bad as the harassment of countless vulnerable people.
Countless vulnerable people haven't been harassed. There are 12 documented cases in the history of MAID in Canada where someone was allegedly offered MAID innapropriately. There have been inquests and reports that have counted them. Not one resulted in a death. Christine Gauthier's experience couldn't be substantiated when they reviewed her records, but they did find in that investigation that a single case worker had offered MAID to 4 veterans.
On the other hand there have been over 50k successful petitions for MAID most of which were for people with Cancer.
As a utilitarian, you should presumably look at the actual numbers, and balance the tens of thousands of people who chose not to suffer agonizing deaths against the 12 documented cases of people who were offered MAID as an option when they think they shouldn't have been.
I think these are valid concerns, but I would also say that there is an underlying issue with medical malpractice and disregard for the suffering and needs of certain groups of society which we tend to brush under the rug. I'm going to assume the concerns you have probably don't stop at just euthanasia - mine definitely don't, and I worry that a ban just makes the issue more... abstract, and PR-friendly.
If an individual in a difficult life situation comes to the state for help as a last resort, and there is a chance the representative they are assigned would recommend they should consider just dying as their last resort, the state has already failed to protect someone vulnerable, and obviously won't be giving them the help they deserve/need/should be entitled to as a human.
Any wrongful death is horrible, but I sincerely believe a "representative" like this and the harm they inflict is going to have an almost identical death toll, even if it's by way of consigning people to sub-human lives of physical or mental torment instead of pushing them towards a tool that "everyone" understands we need to keep a close eye on. My utilitarian take would be that many would happily extend the torment of the terminally ill and suffering, as long as they don't have to deal with the suffering their neglect inflicts on countless vulnerable people and the terminally ill already. (For e-clarity, I don't mean to imply that's your motivation here!)
> If an individual in a difficult life situation comes to the state for help as a last resort, and there is a chance the representative they are assigned would recommend they should consider just dying as their last resort, the state has already failed
Medical assistance in dying is a medical act, reserved to doctors. Just like a car salesman can't legally recommend you an abortion. No one in the government has the legal right to discuss it, even less offer it.
Yes, my point was that that person having a position where they are able to do that is already wrong. If a car salesman was telling every woman that came in they should get an abortion, there are places that person should be, and none of them are a car dealer's.
I would look into countries where euthanasia has been already implemented. It doesn't seem like it's a widespread problem, so apparently they made it work somehow.
Does it mean it's absolutely bulletproof and no-one will ever be pressured to undergo euthanasia? No, but you can't ever achieve such certainty, and it's better to look at it from the utilitarianism view - allowing euthanasia will prevent much more suffering than it will cause.