On Friday MPs vote in the Commons on the Assisted Dying Bill. The bill was introduced by Katy Leadbeater. She has said: “I believe we should have the right to see out our days surrounded by those we love and care for, knowing that when we are gone they can remember us as we would like to be remembered.”
Notice the language of rights.
Rights is a complicated language. The scholars – John Finnis, for instance – say that rights are, and I paraphrase of course, fragments of right. Right is the opposite of wrong. Right is systematic when established: it is established in law. Hegel wrote a philosophy of right. But rights are not like right. Rights are fragments, crumbs, bits: and, unlike right, which is no-one’s, rights are mine or yours. They are property. They belong to us. It is not right to kill anyone, but, oddly, it might be my right to be killed.
Now, it is common to say, ‘No rights without responsibilities’, but, in fact, the true correlative of a right is a duty. And, in fact, it is of some significance that almost every major thinker between Cicero, let’s say, and Pufendorf, when writing about law and order, explained it in terms of duties, and certainly not in terms of rights. Cicero wrote De Officiis: where ‘an office’ is, in Latin, literally, ‘a duty’ (so that what we call ‘an office’ now is the space in which we are appointed to do our duty). Pufendorf, 17 centuries later, wrote De Officio Hominis et Civis, “on the duties of man and citizen”. Duties, not rights. But then the inversion came. It was only a century after Pufendorf that Thomas Paine wrote Rights of Man. And in the last two centuries we have followed Paine, and talked about rights, not duties.
What is a right? Well, it is a credit. If you have rights, you are in credit.
Why do I say this? Well, because a duty is a debt. A duty is what is due someone, what is owed to them.
For centuries, then, we always thought of order in terms of what we, the people, owed that order. Then we changed our minds at the time of the American and French Revolutions and thought about order in terms of what we, the people, are owed by the order. Entitled little citizens, we are. Gimme.
Now, what if we were to think about ‘assisted dying’ in terms of duties rather than in terms of rights?
Is there a duty to die? Well, not really.
But is there a right to die? No.
Death is an inevitability. It is a null act, from the point of view of the rights or duties of the person undergoing it.
Yet there seems to be a duty not to let anyone die unnecessarily. There might be a duty to preserve life. We owe this to others, to ourselves.
The entire abortion debate, in theory at least, seems to me to go wholly wrong because it is conjugated in terms of rights, not duties. Do I have a right to bodily autonomy? But of course! But, a darker question, do I have a duty to defend the life of a child? (Its ‘bodily autonomy’?) Probably, yes. Rights: selfish, demoralising. Useful, no doubt. But a bit irresponsible, n’est-ce pas? Abortion = not taking responsibility. Yes, we think about it in terms of rights, make it about entitlement, serve the self, and that’s it: Roy Jenkins can have his reform. However, now let us think about it in terms of duty. What must I do? Probably not kill an unborn child.
As I say, I only reflect on this theoretically. Practice is, of course, vexed. Our culture has been almost entirely abortive and contraceptive since the 1960s.
Perhaps, nonetheless, on the same grounds, we have a duty not to agree to ‘euthanasia’ or ‘assisted dying’ or any other euphemistic way of describing killing.
This is just a thought. Using the language of ‘rights’ makes it seem pleasant, kind, etc. Read Leadbeater again: “I believe we should have the right to see out our days surrounded by those we love and care for, knowing that when we are gone they can remember us as we would like to be remembered.” Nice. But how will we be remembered? Without dignity, instead going out with Dignitas. Dying is degrading, it seems (we don’t like to be seen suffering, and they don’t like to see us suffering), and so we shall ask for the pillow to be lowered, or the switch to be flicked, gently. But if we use the language of ‘duty’, then the entire subject seems to take on a different aspect. Perhaps MPs have a duty to reject the bill. Perhaps they shouldn’t have the right to pass it.
And it is always possible that there is dignity in suffering. Take that dignity away, as we seem to be doing, and then we might as well be gently good-nighted by a doctor, as soon as it is less troublesome, to him, us, or those we love, than any other remedy.
P.S. I wrote the name “John Finnis” above because I remembered he had written very interestingly about rights in 1980 or so: but then thought I’d better check to see if he has written anything about euthanasia. Finnis is an influential Oxford philosopher. And he has, in fact, written on euthanasia: at least one article, and a few book chapters. So I take a look. Most accessibly, he spoke on the subject to the House of Lords in 2005. He offered two arguments. One was moral: he thought that assisted dying was wrong. But he didn’t emphasise this, because he did not expect everyone to agree with it. The argument he emphasised was that the established law preventing euthanasia was clear, and the proposed law to enact euthanasia was unclear. A law preventing euthanasia avoids all hard cases, because it establishes the principle that no one may kill a patient or help them kill themselves, in any circumstance. He said there was a clear line. But he observed that any sanction of euthanasia would introduce an unclear line. And this in turn would make it inevitable that there would be strictly illegal murders, as doctors would be asked by people who claimed to be sufferingly ‘unbearably’ to be killed, or would be asked by those claiming a ‘right’ to be killed. Finnis said, in effect, if euthanasia is a right then suffering is irrelevant (I have a right to die, no matter what), and if euthanasia is about suffering, then autonomy is irrelevant (why worry if the patient is compos mentis if he is in pain?)
It seems to me that the arguments against assisted dying – both moral and consequential – are so strong that the argument for can only seem to make sense if one allows one’s emotions to be played on by extremely particular stories or cases. As this seems to be the case, it is anyone’s guess what the result will be.
But it certainly seems possible to me that, if it is passed, the Assisted Dying Bill will be the ‘high’ point of rights language.
Rights, originally taken to be a means of secular salvation, will finally have been inverted and made the means of secular damnation.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Do I have a ‘right’ to insist that someone else suffers in great pain towards the end of their life? Because ‘reasons’ that my own philosophy requires?.
Let me simplify what this is all about: the state wants to get rid of you once you are no longer useful.
Anything else is just bull waste propaganda to sell it to the crowds, make it palatable and sugar coat it with some hypocritical lie.
It will go exactly the same way as abortion. Initially it was going to be only used as a last resort in grave circumstances, rape, incest, serious abnormalities. Then it rapidly became a convenient method to get rid of unwanted babies.
If you think there is a anything more to it, then, in my opinion, you have bought the propaganda.
I agree with the author’s observation: “Our culture has been almost entirely abortive and contraceptive since the 1960s.” Yes, it has. Current western culture is in the grips of a marxo-fascist death cult. The fruits of this become clearer every day.
Ummm.. Well im not sure if youve ever had to endure a loved ones slow and painful cancer death, with the latter months of pointless existence and zero quality of life.
I agree that theres an element of the State being sinister here, but i have also experienced the above and i cant see why one should endure a death that if you allowed your pet dog to endure you’d be procecuted..
Its a difficult one admittedly, but no one will be telling me what i can and cant do if i am ever terminally ill…
Thats not “buying propaganda”- thats life experience
No, I haven’t been in that situation, although my dad died of cancer and it wasn’t pretty.
So I understand your argument. Likewise maybe if I was in serious pain, I would be screaming to be euthanased.
And yet, and yet.
The problem is that once you legally allow this, the entire framework changes.
Until now you couldn’t – now you can.
Do you really think this won’t change into a “let’s kill the old and frail” until, in the end, you have effectively no choice?
Do we really think the state won’t be tempted by the massive financial benefit of getting rid of the economical burden of keeping old people alive?
Oh, but now we can!
You remember how quickly taking the “vaccines” turned from voluntary to almost mandatory? You think it can’t happen with euthanasia?
One day, it might be you or me.
“Do you really think this won’t change into a “let’s kill the old and frail””..
On the contrary, care homes and keeping the elderly going on buckets of Big Pharmas drugs when there is zero quality of life is an industry in itself…
Yes it is what it morphs into is what concerns me, where death becomes normalised and becomes just another appointment.
I do only have experience of two recent deaths but my sense is that doctors are already administering “end of life” drugs to those in dire need in the situations you suggest? This (below) is from a document from a hospice on end of life medicines – the document is available on the internet so hardly a secret.
“Many drugs used in palliative care (especially drug combinations in syringe driver) are used outside of the product licence or datasheet recommendations. However, there is wide experience of their use in palliative care. The responsibility for prescribing is taken by the prescriber (usually a doctor). Practitioners should be aware when using drugs in a manner which falls outside the product licence specification, and should be able to support their practice e.g. with references”.
It’s not an area I know a great deal about but I do think someone dying of cancer, in particular, should already be well provided for in this respect with palliative care/pain relief/respite care/Mcmillan nurse support. Hospices cater pretty well for those dying with cancer – other types of deaths have to take their chances with the NHS but neither of the deaths I refer to were cancer deaths and both ended with the “end of life” package.
I’m with Majormajor on this one, I’d vote against it if I was an MP. Although when I first saw “Whose life is it anyway?” many many years ago I would have agreed with you. It is a difficult one.
Well it seems that my personal experience is far from the care that you claim, so far from it, a family member deciding to throw himself out of bed to injure himself so he would get back to hospital from the hospice as the pain was unbearable… Not quite this wonderful palliative care you purported….and another that I simply couldn’t go in to as it’s too distressing…
I know for a fact that both these gentlemen would have wished their end to have been brought to an end before those horrific, and I don’t use that term lightly, final few, pointless and cruel months.
To summerise I think your vision of end of life care is somewhat romantic
I agree with you, I just do not trust government to do this well
Agreed, but that is a separate issue.. Trusting the state and an individual having the right to end his life instead of having to endure cruel final months should not be conflated and should be debated as separate issues
The Guardian: “Ageing Britain: two-fifths of NHS budget is spent on over-65s”.
Please add to that the fact that the majority of euthanasia supporters are relatives and carers unable to cope financially and emotionally.
Above all, we mustn’t forget that one’s Right to Die goes together with a Doctor’s Right to Kill, thus cancelling an over 2000-year-old Hippocratic Oath : PHYSICIAN, CAUSE NO HARM!
Worse still, one’s personal right to die (which I can accept in theory) is quickly conflated into obliging somebody else to kill you (which I struggle with). In other words, my right to die is stronger than your right to chose to not be a murdered, or support and enable a murderer by contributing to the healthcare system that enables a murderer.
That is demonstrably untrue, and I think you have bought into the pro-life propaganda.
Indeed
I believe there is a right to commit suicide, nobody is prosecuted after a failed attempt, there is also a right to abort an unborn baby. I can’t see why this issue is contentious, people should be able to do as they please, as long as it doesn’t impact on others.
Yes, I’m pro-choice on both of these topics, only they must come with strict criteria. The problem I see regarding the euthanasia subject though, is that I wouldn’t trust the government ( Uniparty, let’s say ) as far as I can throw them. The British government ( and many others across the world ) showed us exactly how much value they placed on our quality of life as well as our human rights during the scamdemic years. Look how many needlessly died due to demicide and iatrogenesis. It was actively killing people via the death cocktail of administration of midazolam+morphine, also inappropriately putting people on ventilators, or it was withholding treatment in various ways. Then there’s all those ‘deaths of despair’ due to lockdowns, then the death jabs we were all coerced to get but never needed….But they’ve got away with it and will continue to do so. So I find it a bit rich for politicians to be getting all moral now when they provably couldn’t give a rat’s arse about the lives of the public. They destroyed enough of them already!
But in the same way I wouldn’t want to see my beloved pet suffer and the vet said there’s nothing more that can be done, I also wouldn’t want that for myself or if a human loved one chose to take that option. Euthanasia should be assessed on a case by case basis because you can have two people with the exact same diagnosis and exact same quality of life but because they’re individuals their free will and wishes must be respected, so one may still find some value in their life while the other person just cannot possibly endure any more. We need to treat everyone as the unique people they are and listen to their wishes as opposed to selfishly thinking we know best, because we don’t, and such an attitude is arrogant in the extreme because you’re not taking into consideration that person’s reality and personal experience.
Within the same sentence you make two contradictory statements:
1.) People should be able to do as they please, as long as it doesn’t impact on others.
2.) It is a right to abort an unborn baby
I would certainly argue that aborting a baby impact has an impact on the “other”, namely the baby.
Still, credit to you for calling it a baby, at least you are not hiding behind some euphemism, such as “the fetus”, “the product of conception”, or “human tissue”.
I agree that the abortion issue is contentious, because another life is involved.
Except it’s not a “baby” at all. But then I’m not a person who is terribly emotionally invested in such things. Quite dispassionate, in fact. We referred to it as a pregnancy or gestational sac in the early stages, then it’s an embryo. When a female has a medical termination of pregnancy ( MTOP ), using medication not suction/surgery, it’s like having a miscarriage. It’s like passing a sizeable clot when you have your period, only a heavier period than normal. That is definitely *not* a baby. This is why females must not be on their own during this process, as there’s always the possibility they can haemorrhage and lose too much blood. Hence have someone at home or come into a gynae ward/abortion centre, where women and girls can be looked after appropriately, their dignity and privacy respected. It’s about safety and not being judgemental.
This is, in its own way, very wonderful. “We” have a medical terminology for speakng of these things that entirely removes them from the moral sphere; so all you need to do is to think consistently with (or have your thinking done for you by) this terminology and all problems disappear. If what is got rid of is a “gestational sac”, say, how can there be any right or wrong involved?
Not that there is nothing very special about medical terminology. The same effect can be achieved by speaking of, say, murder like a butcher: the object being dismantled is just so much of ‘shoulder’, ‘loin’, ‘kidney’ etc. Why get terribly emotionally invested in such things?
There seems to be this misconception ( 🤭 ) among many people that as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg there magically appears a baby. This is why I say I’m not emotionally invested. For that gestational sac to become a foetus then a fully formed, viable baby requires a process. This is rudimentary human biology which I think certain people could do with being reacquainted with, although I get that the more religious types will always have their objections about this topic, regardless of pregnancy stage.
Basically, if you want to terminate a pregnancy it’s best to do so in the first trimester. Preferably before week 10. I do not agree with terminations beyond the first 12 weeks and I personally think that’s sufficient time for a female to realise she’s pregnant and decide what she wants to do.
At what stage in the process does any moral question arise, for the less religious types, I mean?
I’m not sure about a right to commit suicide as opposed to it no longer being a crime. But the language around suicide has certainly changed. People used to say it was selfish act and the person didn’t care about who was left behind. In that sense there was a duty not to destroy the lives of others impacted as a result. Suicide certainly casts long shadows down family generations.
But many aborted babies are actually viable, and need killing by the clinic.
So yes I’m kind of pro-choice but not when it comes to carving up living babies inside the womb, pulling them out piece by piece and chucking them in a bucket.
Have you found out who was behind the Holodomor and the 70million murdered gentiles in Soviet Russia between 1917 and 1950s yet?..
The joos obviously.
Spouting bs gobshite without knowing the facts about European history….. Gobshite…
You’re a funny guy!
Those long winter evenings must just fly by… I can see it now, pass the holodomor my dear… what joy!
And if what pleases the mother is to have an abortion, that doesn’t affect “others” because what has been aborted isn‘t “another”. It isn’t anything — as Alexander says — that the mother has a duty towards? Which means, of course, that we need another word than ‘mother’ for the woman concerned, ‘non-birthing person’ perhaps?
Slight tangent here, and I don’t know if these are even in the UK, but this is quite hideous how these men ‘offed’ their wives. Of course, there must be stories where wives offed their husbands too. I’m aware of the woman’s bias due to her bio. But they all got suspended sentences, despite cutting throats, throwing off balconies and bludgeoning women with a hammer. All in the name of ”mercy killing”. Quite terrifying;
”When a woman is diagnosed with cancer, one of the many things her oncologist must explain is that her husband will probably leave her.
Now it seems that a woman is lucky if her partner simply leaves, instead of “putting her out of her misery.”
The quotes below are sickening. They were made by judges to men who “mercy killed” their wives. All 12 were given suspended sentences, btw; the judges were falling all over themselves trying to excuse these men for violently murdering sick and disabled women who wouldn’t have stood a chance even had they been healthy.”
https://x.com/sappholives83/status/1861440666074784153
The majority of people who would ‘benefit’ from suicide, i.e. people with terminal and painful medical conditions, could do so without assistance.
The campaign for legalising assisted suicide is mainly about people wanting social approval for it. As with gay marriage, legal recognition is the ultimate rubber stamp of societal approval.
With approval, people can leave this world feeling virtuous about it, rather than ashamed. Incredibly pathetic, but maybe we shouldn’t expect more from the ‘my mask helps you’ people.
Yes, there will be some poor people who are both in severe pain and so disabled they cannot commit suicide without assistance. Hard cases make bad law. Tough.
“The majority of people who would ‘benefit’ from suicide, i.e. people with terminal and painful medical conditions, could do so without assistance.”
You have no evidence whatsoever to support your facile assertion, and you ignore the trauma caused by amateur suicides, which often fail.
I admit I don’t have ‘evidence’ but is it facile? No doubt there is a spectrum of conditions and that includes those who truly would welcome the assistance, as I explicitly recognise in my last paragraph. Hard cases make bad law.
Where hard cases make bad law it is right to make the law on the basis of the societal good (which, for the avoidance of doubt, means that we do NOT legalise assisting suicide), and give judges discretion regarding sentencing.
Those who chant: “My body, my choice” – the “Right” to choose.
Either that is true or false – it can’t be both depending on which way the wind is blowing.
And this is the whole problem with the Rights Industry: Freedom, Right, Licence are conflated and deemed to be interchangeable.
I blame the schools.
“My body my choice” was a falsehood, a useful slogan that was not heartfelt but that they clutched to for lack of any better argument. We during the pandemic how quickly this principle could evaporate.
It will be passed, and it will lead to murders.
For sure.
Already lots of murders, look at what happened to the elderly in care homes during the scandemic..
Why should I not have the right to decide where, how and when I die? My life, my decision, one would hope in a truly free society.
And if someone is agreeable to assist me, that is their right.
This is full of the risk of unintended consequences. It sounds like empathy, but where will it end up, and what will it morph into? My local surgery and pharmacist are continually making a pigs ear of stuff. Do we really want government via the NHS to be in charge of when we die? Can we guarantee they will not make a total hash of this?
If the arguments against assisted dying are so strong, it would have been better if the author had stated them, instead of descending into an irrelevant discussion of semantics.
I don’t believe that giving terminally ill people a choice can be wrong. Denying choice is wrong.
Is it irrelevant whether you think in terms of ‘rights’ or ‘duties’? How are you to think without thinking about the words you use?
Deal with the actual issues, such as people for whom palliative care doesn’t ease their suffering. Reducing it to a matter of rights or duties is cowardice and deflection.
And can you think about “the actual” without thinking about the words you conceive of it in?