A NEW WAY TO SECURE THE
RIGHT-TO-DIE:
LAWS
AGAINST CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH
SYNOPSIS:
The first attempts to secure the right-to-die
focused on adding provisions to the health-care sections of our
laws
so that physicians could prescribe life-ending chemicals
to be taken by the patient when he or she chooses to die.
However, there is another section of our laws that
needs reform.
Our homicide laws
usually include a provision against
assisting suicide.
Since suicide itself
is no
longer a crime in most places,
we can also repeal or revise the laws against assisting suicide
and replace them with new
laws against causing premature death.
When our laws define the new crime of causing premature death,
these laws will also define wisely-chosen deaths that were NOT premature.
OUTLINE:
1.
LAWS AGAINST COMMITTING SUICIDE---OR ASSISTING
2. REPEALING OUTDATED LAWS AGAINST ASSISTING SUICIDE
3.
NEW LAWS AGAINST CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH
4.
SAFEGUARDS TO INCLUDE IN NEW LAWS
AGAINST
CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH
5.
CONCLUSION: INSTEAD OF DYING TOO SOON OR TOO LATE,
WE CAN DIE AT
THE
RIGHT TIME
RESULT:
Readers who originally thought that the
right-to-die
could only be achieved by new laws
allowing doctors to give their dying patients gentle poison
to cause immediate death
might have their minds expanded to consider
a completely new and different way to achieve the same goal:
Modifying the laws against 'assisting suicide'
to allow all forms of rational help for dying patients
will shift the burden of proof
to those who want to prevent irrational suicide
and other forms of premature death:
Under such new laws, the prosecutor will have to prove
that a particular death was premature.
Fulfilling specific safeguards before the death takes place
will prove that this death took place at the right time.
A
NEW WAY TO SECURE THE RIGHT-TO-DIE:
LAWS AGAINST CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH
by
James Leonard Park
The first right-to-die laws all
around the world allowing dying patients
to choose the best
time and the best
means of death
focused on procedures
for granting permission or approval
or establishing protocols for applying
for the right-to-die.
But reforms could begin with a completely different
part of the law.
Instead of new laws permitting physicians to provide deadly chemicals,
we can replace all laws
against assisting suicide
with laws against causing
premature death.
Assisting suicide was usually prohibited by homicide laws.
The homicide laws define
assisting a suicide as a form of murder.
And they use criminal-justice procedures
to determine who has committed the crime of assisting a suicide.
1. LAWS
AGAINST COMMITTING SUICIDE---OR ASSISTING
Suicide itself used to be part of the homicide laws
everywhere.
Suicide was considered a form of murder—murdering
oneself.
It is now difficult for us to think of a crime against oneself.
For example, how would it be possible to steal from oneself?
Some early thinking about suicide called it
a crime against God:
The sovereign of the universe owns each and every life.
And anyone who 'takes' a life (even his or her own life)
destroys something that belongs to God.
With a somewhat different twist, within monarchies,
all the people (subjects) were said to belong to the king or queen.
Thus murder or suicide were crimes
against the crown,
destroying subjects who belonged to the earthly sovereign.
Nowadays almost everywhere,
irrational suicide is said to be a form of harming oneself.
It is no longer a crime because we want suicidal people
to receive psychological help
rather than be punished.
But when the laws against committing suicide
were repealed,
usually the law-makers did
not change the crime of assisting a suicide.
When suicide itself was a crime,
it was reasonable to outlaw behavior that assisted that crime.
Those who helped people to commit suicide were
accomplices.
But logically there are problems with continuing to criminalize
helping someone to perform an
act that is no longer a crime.
Careful and consistent laws to replace laws against 'assisting
suicide'
can separate behavior harmful
to a victim (which should remain a crime)
from behavior that is helpful
to a patient (which should not be a crime).
2. REPEALING OUTDATED
LAWS
AGAINST ASSISTING SUICIDE
This oddity of half-changed ancient laws
gives us an opportunity to secure the right-to-die
in a completely unexpected place: within the laws against homicide.
We can propose replacing all laws against
assisting suicide
with new laws against
causing premature death.
Even tho we agree with de-criminalizing suicide and
attempted suicide,
we still see them as self-harming
behaviors that should be
discouraged.
However, when we look more closely,
we notice another kind of behavior that is not harmful.
Here are four ways to distinguish irrational suicide from voluntary death:
Is the behavior harmful
or helpful to the
person?
Is the behavior irrational
or rational?
Is the behavior capricious
or well-planned?
Is the behavior regrettable
or admirable?
These terms are fully developed in another chapter entitled:
Will this Death be an "Irrational Suicide" or a "Voluntary Death"?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-IS-VD.html
If we want
to discourage self-harming behavior,
we could revise our laws against
assisting a suicide
to punish people who assist an
irrational
suicide.
This will require such laws to
define irrational suicide
so that it does not
include
wisely
helping patients to make their end-of-life medical decisions.
3.
NEW LAWS AGAINST CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH
New laws
against causing premature death would prohibit
encouraging an irrational suicide or committing a mercy-killing.
And they would provide safeguards to
permit assisting a voluntary death or granting a merciful death.
See this draft Model Law against Causing Premature Death:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/PREM-DTH.html
This new approach to life-ending decisions
is based on the well-established paradigm for withdrawing
life-supports.
When patients are being kept alive by machines and drugs,
they can now decide to discontinue
all curative treatments
and disconnect all
life-support machinery,
thus allowing their disease, illness, or injury
to run its expected course, resulting in a natural death.
As now practiced wherever life-support systems are
used,
such life-ending decisions are made by doctors and patients.
When the patients are no longer able to decide for themselves,
relatives or formal proxies are empowered to decide for their patients.
The safeguards in place that prevent premature withdrawal of
life-supports
consist mainly of the medical records for each patient,
which show all of the medical procedures that have already been tried
in the now-proven-vain efforts to save the patient from death.
Another
chapter explores disconnecting
life-supports:
"Pulling the Plug: A Paradigm for Life-Ending Decisions":
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-PLUG.html
We are not required
to make any additional applications
or to complete government paperwork
before pulling the plug.
We
have an inherent right to
end our lives by terminating all
life-supports.
However, it should be noted that there are possible
crimes
that might be committed under the color of removing life-supports.
If the doctors and/or the family want the patient dead
even tho this would not
be the best choice for this patient at this
time,
they might maliciously disconnect whatever is keeping the patient alive
or even violently destroy the life-support machines.
When any such criminal acts are committed in the hospital,
they can be prosecuted under existing laws against homicide.
This proposal for making new laws for dying patients
would make such crimes even
more explicit.
And different penalties would be applied to crimes against the dying
than would be applied to crimes against people
who were expected to continue living.
This new approach to right-to-die legislation
would permit all forms of the
right-to-die
by providing explicit safeguards that carefully separate
the harmful behavior of
causing a premature death
from the helpful behavior of
aiding a dying patient to choose a timely death.
4. SAFEGUARDS TO
INCLUDE
IN NEW
LAWS AGAINST
CAUSING
PREMATURE DEATH
Here is a list of 26 recommended safeguards
that would prevent
irrational suicide and other forms of premature death
while
at the same time permitting
all forms of legitimate life-ending decisions.
Each safeguards is linked to a further explanation on the Internet.
SAFEGUARDS
TO BE FULFILLED BY
PHYSICIANS
AND OTHER
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS
PHYSICIAN'S
STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS
CERTIFICATION
OF TERMINAL ILLNESS OR INCURABLE CONDITION
INDEPENDENT
PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS
ENROLLMENT
IN A
HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE
STATEMENTS
FROM
HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE STAFF MEMBERS
PALLIATIVE
CARE
TRIAL
THE
PATIENT
IS
MENTALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING A LIFE-ENDING DECISION
AN
INSTITUTIONAL
ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVES THE DEATH
PHYSICIANS
REVIEW THE COMPLETE DEATH-PLANNING RECORDS
SAFEGUARDS
TO BE FULFILLED BY THE
PATIENT
ADVANCE
DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE
REQUESTS
FOR
DEATH FROM THE PATIENT
INFORMED
CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT
UNBEARABLE
SUFFERING
UNBEARABLE
PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING
WAITING
PERIODS
FOR REFLECTION
OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE PATIENT TO RESCIND OR POSTPONE
ANY
LIFE-ENDING
DECISIONS
THE
PATIENT IS CONSCIOUS AND ABLE TO CHOOSE DEATH
SAFEGUARDS
TO BE FULFILLED BY
PROXIES FOR THE
PATIENT
AND/OR FAMILY MEMBERS
REQUESTS
FOR
DEATH FROM THE PROXIES
STATEMENTS
FROM FAMILY MEMBERS
AFFIRMING
OR
QUESTIONING CHOOSING DEATH
STATEMENTS
FROM
ADVOCATES FOR
DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
IF
INVITED BY
THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES
SAFEGUARDS TO BE FULFILLED BY
MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY
A
MEMBER OF THE CLERGY
APPROVES
OR
QUESTIONS CHOOSING DEATH
RELIGIOUS
OR
OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLES
APPLIED
TO THIS
LIFE-ENDING DECISION
SAFEGUARDS TO BE FULFILLED BY THE
PROSECUTING
AUTHORITY
REVIEW
BY THE
PROSECUTOR (OR OTHER LAWYER)
BEFORE THE DEATH
TAKES PLACE
CIVIL
AND
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH
SAFEGUARDS TO BE FULFILLED BY THE
DEATH-PLANNING
COORDINATOR
COMPLETE
RECORDING AND SHARING
OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND OPINIONS
THE
DEATH-PLANNING COORDINATOR ORGANIZES THE SAFEGUARDS
The above list of
safeguards has been selected
from a more complete list of over 30 possible safeguards:
Catalog of Proposed Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/SG-CAT.html
Most of the above safeguards
are organized in a different way here:
26 Recommended Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/SG-A-Z.html
Almost all of these safeguards could be used in
other kinds of laws,
such as the more conventional attempts
to permit physicians to
prescribe life-ending chemicals.
Different states within the United States and different countries of
the world
will try their own approaches to secure the right-to-die.
And some of them might consider the new approach suggested here:
If we define and describe the new crime of causing premature death,
we will also define and describe timely death.
5. CONCLUSION: INSTEAD OF
DYING
TOO SOON OR TOO LATE,
WE CAN DIE AT
THE RIGHT TIME
Once laws defining premature death are enacted by
states or countries,
then the safeguards embodied in those laws
will also define which
deaths are NOT premature.
As civilized societies, we should continually strive
to prevent people from
harming themselves by committing
irrational suicide
and from harming others by
encouraging them to kill themselves
foolishly.
Once laws are in place to discourage such harms,
the same laws will also permit wise choices
of the best times and
the best means for us
to end our lives.
Isn't that what we mean by the
right-to-die?
drafted
February 2,
2007; revised 2-4-2007; 2-8-2007; 2-16-2007; 2-17-2007; 3-8-2007;
3-29-2007;
4-4-2008; 4-1-2009; 6-7-2009; 2-11-2010: 5-22-2010; 3-12-2011;
12-7-2011;
1-15-2012; 2-28-2012; 3-16-2012; 4-6-2012; 7-10-2012; 9-6-2012;
4-6-2013; 6-14-2013; 4-20-2014; 2-11-2015; 4-23-2015; 7-15-2015;
8-6-2016; 11-28-2017; 12-5-2018; 1-8-2020; 11-4-2020;
AUTHOR:
James Park is an independent, original philosopher
with deep interest in medical ethics,
especially the many issues surrounding the end of life.
Medical Ethics and Death are two of the ten sections of his website:
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library
Here
are a few related on-line essays:
Two
Approaches
to Right-to-Die Laws:
Granting Permission & Banning Harms
Losing the Marks of Personhood:
Discussing Degrees of Mental Decline
Advance
Directives for Medical Care:
24 Important Questions to Answer
Fifteen
Safeguards
for Life-Ending Decisions
Will
this Death be an "Irrational Suicide" or a "Voluntary Death"?
Will
this Death be a "Mercy-Killing" or a "Merciful Death"?
Four
Medical Methods of Managing Dying
<>Pulling
the
Plug:
A Paradigm for Life-Ending Decisions
Why
Giving Up
Water is Better than other Means of Voluntary Death
Depressed?
Don't
Kill
Yourself!
Further
Reading:
Best
Books on Voluntary Death
Best
Books on Preparing for Death
Books
on Terminal Care
Books on Helping Patients to Die
Books
Supporting
the Right-to-Die
Books
Opposing
the Right-to-Die
Go to the Right-to-Die
Portal.
Return to the DEATH
page.
Go to the Medical
Ethics
index page.
Go to other
on-line essays by James Park,
organized into 10 subject-areas.
Go to
the beginning of this website
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library