Coming here from Marginal Revolution. I note your argument seems to rely heavily on a couple of premises;
1. that the state of things in Canada, at the "bottom of the slope", is in fact bad
2. that we can paternalistically decide for others that when they say, repeatedly, not on impulse, and without coercion, that they want to die, that what they "actually" want is something that seems better to us.
I think many assisted dying supporters (myself included) would reject both those premises.
You'll no doubt be aware that the state of Oregon has had an assisted dying law for over twenty years that has not been subject to any kind of slippery slope. As you say, the Canada law was court-led and this has resulted in slippage towards allowing the euthanasia of the mentally ill and the disabled. This has not happened in Oregon. In fact, many of the scenarios that you warn against have not happened in Oregon. There is no reason to believe that our future will more like Canada's than Oregon's.
It is disingenuous of you to argue that a patient with a) a terminal disease and b) unbearable pain is seeking assisted suicide out of boredom and it is not simply reducing their feeling to ‘I want to die’ if we also require the opinion of two doctors that the patient is, indeed, in unbearable pain and will likely die within six months. One might suspect that you have experienced neither a terminal disease nor unbearable pain.
But is six months long enough to express a wish to die?
That’s something I would have liked covered- life is a terminal illness. If you suddenly get cancer and have three months to live, you can’t qualify for assisted suicide because there isn’t time long enough to express your wish consistently. Suddenly the rules have to change to be more “fair,” and you’ve already moved down the slope.
If you have fifteen of fewer days left, according to your doctor, I would think you’d have bigger problems. That sounds like a “you could die at any time” scenario, given the accuracy of predictions. You might as well be patient. And if you live longer than 15 days, your doctors were wrong.
Your pain could end at any time because you could die at any time. Why put in more effort for something that is already certain? The doctors have said I have 15 or fewer days to live. If I live longer than 15 days in tremendous pain, I should sue my doctors for malpractice because they are quacks.
I read most of those and researched a few. They were all slightly misleading in a way that might make you question the rightness of the decision. For example, the first case considers a woman who was refused because she was not mentally competent. It turns out that she was refused by a doctor who did not support the law (as is his right under the law). She wasn't refused because of mental incompetence at all.
Most of the cases listed are about the possibility that the patient had a history of depression or suicide ideation. Of the ones I followed up on, it was true, they had a history of depression, but the psychiatrist declared the patient fit to decide. That seems to me appropriate.
I also found this which refutes all the cases one by one:
Coming here from Marginal Revolution. I note your argument seems to rely heavily on a couple of premises;
1. that the state of things in Canada, at the "bottom of the slope", is in fact bad
2. that we can paternalistically decide for others that when they say, repeatedly, not on impulse, and without coercion, that they want to die, that what they "actually" want is something that seems better to us.
I think many assisted dying supporters (myself included) would reject both those premises.
You'll no doubt be aware that the state of Oregon has had an assisted dying law for over twenty years that has not been subject to any kind of slippery slope. As you say, the Canada law was court-led and this has resulted in slippage towards allowing the euthanasia of the mentally ill and the disabled. This has not happened in Oregon. In fact, many of the scenarios that you warn against have not happened in Oregon. There is no reason to believe that our future will more like Canada's than Oregon's.
It is disingenuous of you to argue that a patient with a) a terminal disease and b) unbearable pain is seeking assisted suicide out of boredom and it is not simply reducing their feeling to ‘I want to die’ if we also require the opinion of two doctors that the patient is, indeed, in unbearable pain and will likely die within six months. One might suspect that you have experienced neither a terminal disease nor unbearable pain.
But is six months long enough to express a wish to die?
That’s something I would have liked covered- life is a terminal illness. If you suddenly get cancer and have three months to live, you can’t qualify for assisted suicide because there isn’t time long enough to express your wish consistently. Suddenly the rules have to change to be more “fair,” and you’ve already moved down the slope.
My understanding is that there is a 15 day waiting period in Oregon but the waiting period can be waived if you have less than 15 days to live.
If you have fifteen of fewer days left, according to your doctor, I would think you’d have bigger problems. That sounds like a “you could die at any time” scenario, given the accuracy of predictions. You might as well be patient. And if you live longer than 15 days, your doctors were wrong.
…and what if you are in tremendous pain?
Your pain could end at any time because you could die at any time. Why put in more effort for something that is already certain? The doctors have said I have 15 or fewer days to live. If I live longer than 15 days in tremendous pain, I should sue my doctors for malpractice because they are quacks.
Also: https://dredf.org/some-oregon-and-washington-state-assisted-suicide-abuses-and-complications/
I read most of those and researched a few. They were all slightly misleading in a way that might make you question the rightness of the decision. For example, the first case considers a woman who was refused because she was not mentally competent. It turns out that she was refused by a doctor who did not support the law (as is his right under the law). She wasn't refused because of mental incompetence at all.
Most of the cases listed are about the possibility that the patient had a history of depression or suicide ideation. Of the ones I followed up on, it was true, they had a history of depression, but the psychiatrist declared the patient fit to decide. That seems to me appropriate.
I also found this which refutes all the cases one by one:
https://deathwithdignity.org/resources/refuting-misinformation/
They suggest that DFDW are less than honest.
So doctor shopping then.
https://dredf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hendin-Foley-Michigan-Law-Review.pdf
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-reality-check-on-assisted-suicide-in-oregon/
Not at all. The law allows doctors to excuse themselves if they don't support the law. That's as it should be.
Sure. But then you just keep looking for a doctor until you find one who says yes. You are shopping for a doctor.