Advantages of the Premature-Death Approach to the Right-to-Die
Encourages Advocates of the Right-to-Die
to Embrace the Safeguards

    When confronted with a list of safeguards they must fulfill,
many advocates of the right-to-die regard them
as a necessary bureaucratic obstacle-course:
They will fulfill the safeguards if they are required to do so,
but they would really prefer to get on with the planned death.
Safeguards are a nuisance, which they will avoid whenever possible.

    However, when safeguards are embodied
in a law against causing premature death,
then the advocates of the right-to-die find themselves on the other side:
Instead of doing as little as possible
and still being able to claim that safeguards have been observed,
the advocates of the right-to-die will embrace the safeguards
and try to fulfill them as completely and carefully as possible
—because the safeguards are the stay-out-of-jail card
for all who help others to choose a wise and timely death.

    People who advise, encourage, and/or assist
others to commit irrational suicide
are subject to prosecution for this crime that harms the victim.
People killing themselves for foolish 'reasons'
will remain a problem into the foreseeable future.
And anyone who aids and abets such self-harming should go to prison:
(1) as a punishment for causing irreparable harm to another person,
(2) as a way of rehabilitating the person who assisted an irrational suicide,
forcing him or her to re-think the process
that led to helping in a foolish self-killing, &
(3) as a way of protecting the public
from any such further outrages against public morality.

    These are the reasons we should keep laws
against 'assisting suicide' on the books.
But at the same time, we ought to permit reasonable people
to choose wise terminal care, which should always include
the possibility of shortening the process of dying
once it becomes clear that there will be no recovery for this patient.

    When laws against causing premature death are created,
they will include explicit, written safeguards,
which can be used in any defense
against the charge of causing a premature death.
Judges will not be able to exclude relevant safeguards
(as they have in the past)
by claiming that the wishes of the patient were not relevant
and the medical condition of the patient as certified by the doctors
does not matter because the charge is murder.

    Anyone who participates in a discussion
that might lead to a life-ending decision
will know by means of the new law just what safeguards to apply
as a means of separating the crime of causing a premature death
from the benefit of granting permission for a voluntary death
or giving the means for achieving a merciful death.

    If I ever advise or help another person to die,
then I will have to think about my own liberty in everything I do.
I have no wish to spend even one hour in jail.
And I can avoid even the suggestion that I ought to go to jail
by fulfilling safeguards that are designed specifically
to separate the criminal act of assisting an irrational suicide
from the legal, moral, and commendable act
of helping someone to choose a wise and timely death.

    In short, it will be in my best interest to do an excellent job
of fulfilling as many safeguards as might be relevant
for showing that this was a wisely-decided death
—not an irrational suicide by any stretch of the imagination.
Then any prosecutor who reads the fulfilled safeguards
will immediately decide that there is no case:
No crime was committed.
And no jury would ever convict
if the jury were allowed to see the safeguards
that were fulfilled in the process of making
the terminal-care decisions for this patient.

    The law against causing premature death
will leave no doubts about what safeguards are relevant.
I may choose among, say, 26 different safeguards,
selecting the ones that will make my case the best.
I can prove beyond reasonable doubt this death was wisely chosen.
The more safeguards I fulfill—and the better I fulfill them—
the stronger will be my case
that I am not guilty of causing a premature death.

    In short, my attitude toward the safeguards shifts
from seeing safeguards as a necessary nuisance
to seeing them as a way of keep myself out of jail.
I will embrace the safeguards
as the way to prove to all who look at the facts
that no harm was done to the patient
and in fact that a great benefit was given to the patient
when meaningless suffering was shorted in a reasonable way.

    The reluctant fulfiller of safeguards will often take short-cuts,
just to fulfill the minimum requirements of the law.
But the fulfiller of safeguards
who is thinking of keeping himself or herself out of jail
by means of proving that all reasonable safeguards were observed
will do an excellent job of applying the safeguards.
The safeguards are written for the purpose
of separating irrational suicides (and other forms of premature death)
from timely deaths that are wisely chosen.
Fulfilling the safeguards means that several people
have examined all of the facts and relevant opinions.

    When safeguards are used to the best advantage,
dozens of people will be involved in making the life-ending decisions.
And, thus, there will be much less chance
of any abuses and mistakes slipping by.

    In the vast majority of cases,
the very process of fulfilling over 20 safeguards
will be obvious proof that no premature death took place.
And if there is ever any doubt about the wisdom of a chosen death,
then the written records created in planning this death
will become the primary evidence for the defense.
And if the safeguards have been superbly completed and fulfilled,
then the jury will be overwhelmed by the testimony
of a roomful of people who independently examined all the facts
and professional opinions surrounding the life-ending decision.
Many witnesses will already be on record
as approving the life-ending decision in this specific case.

    How shall we choose the best end-of-life course of action?
Fulfilling the most relevant safeguards is the operational method
for separating a premature death from a timely death.
Even strong advocates of the right-to-die
should see this basic reason for embracing reasonable safeguards.



See some discussion of how prosecutors might respond to fulfilled safeguards.

Even traditional advocates of the right-to-die will embrace the safeguards
if fulfilling safeguards will keep them out of jail.
This argument is Section D of Chapter 60 of
How to Die: Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
"Encourages Advocates of the Right-to-Die to Embrace the Safeguards".


Go to other Advantages of the Premature-Death Approach to the Right-to-Die.
 
See the Model Statute called Causing Premature Death.
This draft legislation embodies 26 recommended safeguards.

Created 2-28-2008; Revised 8-25-2008; 3-5-2009; 6-10-2009; 3-27-2010; 2-15-2011;
1-17-2012; 1-25-2012; 2-28-2012; 3-30-2012; 7-19-2012; 9-7-2012; 4-6-2013; 6-14-2013;
6-20-2014; 3-18-2015; 7-15-2015; 8-7-2016; 2-28-2018; 12-1-2020;

Go to the beginning of this website
James Leonard Park—Free Library