Should we allow euthanasia?

(This post courtesy of guest moderator Elah Lanis and treasurer Nick Krug)

· Does euthanasia threaten the sanctity of life?
· Do people deserve the right to die?
· If allowed, how should such a policy function?
· What’s so bad about death, anyway?

Starting off with the basics, we talked about why we see death as bad. Several argued that the deprivation of life is the single biggest factor. But there were questions about the ability to compare nonexistence to the spectrum of happiness that we experience in life. (How can you compare nonexistence to different states of experience?) There was also the question of why people are afraid of nonexistence after death but don’t seem to mind the fact that they didn’t exist before birth.

Discussion next turned to questions surrounding an individual’s choice to commit suicide. There were arguments on both sides of the question of whether an individual can ever rationally choose to commit suicide. Should they always hope for the possibility of remission, or can they take action based on probabilities? Since people often change their minds, can we ever trust an individual’s current judgment on the situation, or do we need to try to predict how they will feel later on? (I.e. if they really want to commit suicide now, but we think they may thank us for stopping them from doing so in six months.) Should we honor living wills? Nick argued that respect for the sanctity of life would prevent anyone from taking active measures to end a life. Danie Monahan believed that we should always prevent individuals from committing suicide.

Others debated the existence of a significant moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, that is, whether or not it matters if the doctor withholds food or gives the patient cyanide. Working from Neil’s case of a patient with agonizing six months to live, to Joe Carlsmith’s example of a depressed but sane quadriplegic, the group worked out some of the differences that might exist in individual cases, and where passive and even active euthanasia might be acceptable.

There was also discussion of the costs involved: should individuals be allowed to decide to commit suicide because they want to save money for their families? Economic concerns are often an issue in a society’s decision to accept or reject a policy, and euthanasia is no exception. There seemed to be a general consensus that while such decisions might make us uncomfortable, doctors need to evaluate how to best invest their time and resources, which might often include the choice to help a patient with a great deal of potential instead of a patient with a short time left to live.

Olga questioned the importance the group placed on individual choice, asking why we didn’t put more emphasis on the families’ opinions in such matters. Since families are the ones left afterwards, shouldn’t they have a significant say in all this? While acknowledging the slight awkwardness of such a statement, some argued that since the body no longer has much of an experience, the family can do what it likes with it.

Near the end of our discussion, support rallied for the opinion that no one suffering from even a very painful illness should be allowed to commit suicide or be euthanized if there were significant hope for recovery. The example we used was the 15-year-old whose family's quality of life would be significantly degraded in paying for his treatment.

Are modern gender norms acceptable?

· Is chivalry sexist?
· Can we justify gender-imbalanced courtship traditions?
· Should men wear make-up and women burn their bras?
· What (if any) is the problem with the stay-at-home mom?

Are we slaves to society? Or is there no distinction between the individual and his (or her) societal context? How do we separate what we really want from what we only think we want? We so often hear encouragement to “be the ‘real’ you”—but how should we interpret this admonishon? Joe Carlsmith argued that the phrase is nonsensical. Rejecting what others think of it is not only impossible, it’s foolish. That isn’t to say we should abandon all sense of agency; but one ought at least take caution against the glorification of total autonomy.

So we must think of gender norms as a synthesis of individual conviction and societal proscription. Genetic differences can’t be disregarded, but environmental factors run deep enough to be difficult to distinguish from biology.

What gender norms make us uncomfortable, and which ones do we believe are defensible? Perspectives will, of course, vary greatly. We generally agreed that the phenomenon of femininity is here to stay, as is masculinity, but that freedom of choice should not be restricted. We should advocate equality of opportunity, which may in some cases mean providing special care on the basis of biological distinction (for example, providing day care services for mothers). At the same time, paternalism is unjustified—an individual’s choice of lifestyle is neither the business of the government nor that of society to affirm or devalue, regardless of its alginment with extant gender norms.

As members of a western liberal democracy, we believe in the sacristy of egalitarianism (to one degree or another). Yet we hesitate to impose normative assertions on unwilling individuals, and the tempering of gender norms (if we desire it) must arise organically. A top-down legislative agenda would be undesirable as well as impractical. We may hope, however, that gradually increasing social progressivism will lead to societal enrichment as individuals seize greater freedom of opportunity.