.png){kind=icon}
Question
Consider the following argument made by Charles Foster:
The legislature has an obligation to keep alive (wretchedly and reluctantly and painfully if necessary) a number of patients who would like PAS, because the assisted deaths of those patients would endanger others. The patients who are kept reluctantly alive are casualties of the social contract to which they are parties. This sounds cruel in this context. It sounds like torture in the name of a principle. It is neither of those things. It is simply a stark result of the wholly conventional process of balancing individual and societal benefits and detriments.
Do you agree?
Guidance
Foster’s quote is interesting because normally those who oppose euthanasia do so on the basis of a moral principle (such as the sanctity of life). However, his argument claims that it is more about a balance between individual and societal benefits and detriments. In this quote he, notably, accepts that the current law means some people have live in pain and in a wretched condition, but they are “casualties” of the social contract. In his article he explains it is in the nature of law that regulations that are generally beneficial to society may work badly for particular individuals. Another contemporary example may be the illegalisation of cannabis, even though it might be beneficial for people with some painful conditions.
Foster’s argument may illustrate why those seeking to liberalise the law focus on human rights. If answering this question you could highlight the human rights that could be used. The point is that normally with human rights they must be protected whatever the harm to others. Hence the terrorist cannot be tortured, even if doing so would disclose useful information to the police.
What his argument does highlight is the point that a law often works very well for one group of people, even if badly for another. The law on prohibiting assisted suicide will work badly for those with painful conditions or who are fed up with life as it is difficult for them to end their life. However, it may work well for those with suicidal feelings caused by mental illness or those vulnerable to exploitation by others.
A key issue in answering this question would be whether we could produce a law which would satisfy both groups or better strike the balance between both groups. Should the social contract be changed so that we do not required people to live wretched lives while at the same time we protect those plagued by suicidal thoughts?
Readings
Greasley, K. (2010) ‘R (Purdy) v DPP and the case for wilful blindness’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30: 301. Keown, J. (2002) Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy (Cambridge University Press).Jackson, E. and Keown, J. (2011) Debating Euthanasia (Hart).