Assisted suicide should be illegal.

I'm a liberal, and an atheist, so my approach to assisted suicide isn't religious. I'm gonna argue that assisted suicide erodes basic rights, including equality and freedom. I then conclude with a somewhat libertarian alternative: make deadly drugs freely available to the public. EqualityThe 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to all people. This guarantee is replicated in Article 14 of the European Convention and in the constitutions and declarations of many other countries. We treat people with equal respect because of their status as human beings, without regard to their looks, gender, race, creed, or any other incidental trait. This commitment to human equality is grounded on the belief that all human beings innately have dignity and are worthy of respect. Legalizing assisted suicide undermines human equality in two ways. First, limiting assisted suicide to certain people -- say, the terminallly ill -- sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't. In effect, allowing suicide for some people in certain conditions cheapens the existence of all under those conditions. This is especially worrisome as we expand the categories of people who can request assisted suicides (e. g. saying the disabled should have the right to assisted suicide implies that the disabled live an inferior and expendable life). Second, legalizing assisted suicide suggests that human life only has instrumental value. But the only way to justify equal protection is by recognizing the inherent value of human life. If human life only has value based on its instrumental worth to society, a critical rationale for equal protection drops away. Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? If humans only have value based on their instrumental worth to society, why extend equal protection to those with low IQs? the mentally disabled? the autistic? infants with Down's syndrome? Alzheimer's patients? FreedomFirst, legalizing assisted suicide blurs the line between the right to refuse treatment and requesting an assisted suicide. The key distinction is intent. A doctor who assists suicide primarily intends to cause death; a doctor who withdraws care only intends to respect his patient's wishes. Doctors decide whether to administer an assisted suicide; patients decide whether to refuse treatment. If assisted suicide is legal, the line between these two isn't so clear anymore, because the doctor might interpret withdrawal as the flipside of causing death. The effect in both is the same: death. So how can a doctor know whether he or she is assisting suicide or withdrawing care? This undermines the right to refuse, because doctors acquire power over patients in deciding whether to assist suicide. Second, assisted suicide drowns our privacy in safeguards, because assisted suicide requires a transparent process to check for abuse. The deathbed -- like the bedroom -- should remain free from state intrusion. Death isn't a medical procedure that needs monitoring; it's a time for intimacy, family, close friends, personal goodbyes, forgiveness, humility, and reflection. If assisted suicide were legal, anyone at the deathbed would need to justify being there so that ulterior motives could be crossed off. The deathbed scene would need to be recorded. Dying would become a public event. The result is less privacy and less freedom about our own deaths. Third, if human life only has instrumental value (which it must to justify assisted suicide), what's to stop non-consensual euthanasia? This is precisely what happened in the Netherlands: after legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill, the Netherlands legalized non-consensual euthanasia a few years later. This is one of those things where a slippery slope has been proven by the evidence (e. g. the Netherlands). Allowing assisted suicide quickly leads to non-consensual euthanasia, because both are grounded on the same justification (i. e. the instrumental value of life). Under that logic, if the value of a life is less than the costs of medical care, then physicians arguably would have a moral obligation to kill patients without their consent. Unintended ConsequencesFirst, there's a real danger of abuse without sufficient safeguards. And even with safeguards, there's still a possibility for abuse. There's also the risk of doctors mistakenly killing persons without their consent, as well as the risk that the patient is being coerced by others (e. g. family members). Second, there's a danger about the message that assisted suicide sends. Once early death becomes a medical option for some people (e. g. the terminally ill), it sends a message that early death is respectable for others too (e. g. the disabled, depressed, or those merely tired of life). The fear lies in extending the categories of people for whom assisted suicide is available. If assisted suicide is available to everyone, it pre-approves all suicides. Eventually, this might even reduce interference with suicide attempts. Why interfere with a suicide attempt if the state has already pre-approved it? That's a scary prospect considering that 95% of suicide attempts don't attempt suicide again, because they're often just a cry for help. Third, the possibility of discrimination against minorities. This fear is also real. Consider: (1) minority cancer patients are three times less likely that nonminoirty patients to receive adequate palliative care; (2) blacks are 3.5 times more likely than whites to have one of their limbs amputated; (3) minorities receive worse AIDS treatment. There's no reason this wouldn't translate to assisted suicide. In fact, many elderly Dutch patients insist on written contracts assuring against non-consensual euthanasia before they will admit themselves to hospitals. [1]CorruptionLegalizing assisted suicide corrupts the medical profession. First, it invalidates the Hippocratic Oath, the standard principle for medical ethics. Assisted suicide intentionally doesn't heal, and it intentionally does harm, completely violating the oath. Second, assisted suicide transforms the role of doctors. Patients can already commit suicide unaided; they don't need doctors to commit suicide. The only thing that doctors do when they assist a suicide is santify the suicide. Doctors don't actually perform anything remotely medical; they certainly don't heal. Instead, when doctors assist suicide, they perform a moral function. In effect, doctors become priests, granting absolution for committing suicide. This isn't a role that doctors should have; the medical profession shouldn't be in the business of santifying suicides. That's something better left to religious or moral institutions. Third, allowing assisted suicide could disincentivize the research and development of better medical care (i. e. why improve painkillers for those suffering if assisted suicide is a cheaper option? ). This slope could even disincentivize cures for diseases, since it'll be cheaper to simply kill people off. SuicideMost suicides are hurtful to those left behind. But sometimes, suicide is inspirational, transcendent, and the most beautiful and awe-inspiring act. For instance, Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire in protest after local officials humiliated him and confiscated his wares. He became the "Hero of Tunisia" and "Person of the Year" in Time magazine. His suicide led to riots and protests just hours after, and it culminated in the "Arab Spring," which ultimately led to the removal of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. [3] A bad suicide makes the world worse; a good one makes it better. A medical treatment isn't good or bad; it's neutral. And that is what legalizing assisted suicide does: it reduces suicide to a medical choice. The question "to be or not to be" becomes a medical rather than moral question. Legalization thus removes suicide from our scope of judgment, and in doing so, it deprives suicide of its dramatic power and meaning. Speaking about the Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt famously said that it's the refusal to judge that creates evil. Judgment gives suicide its social power, its ability to make the world a better place. Suicide shouldn't be a neutral act. If we don't judge suicide -- as either good or bad -- then the non-existence of another human being means nothing at all. If suicide is just a medical treatment, there's no room for forgiveness, because there's no room to judge the suicide as good or bad. And if suicide is just a medical treatment, then how can we convince the lovelorn twenty-year old that life is worth it? Or encourage the disabled to continue living? ConclusionAssisted suicide undermines equality, liberty, medical care, and the power of suicide. There's also a host of potential unintended consequences. Taken together, all of these points make a compelling case that assisted suicide should remain illegal. And, keep in mind that suicide is something people can do without assistance, so the potential harms from assisted suicide simply aren't worth the risk. That said, I'd like to propose an alternative to assisted suicide: make deadly drugs available to the public, albeit with warnings about what ingesting them will do and perhaps even a waiting period. This solution removes any need for assisted suicide. The few who take deadly drugs wouldn't need the blessing of a doctor, and for those anxious about the way that they'll die, a vial sitting on a shelf might play a reassuring role and help quell their anxiety. Doctor's wouldn't become prists. There'd be no risk of abuse. And most importantly, suicides would take all moral responsibility for their actions; there'd be no intent to cause another human being's death. [1] The Future of Assisted Suicide, Neil Gorsuch[2] . http://tinyurl.com...