Since the Supreme Court currently has on its docket a case involving assisted suicide for the terminally ill , it seems like an appropriate time for some originary analysis of the ethical problems involved. In discussing of the abortion controversy a few months ago, I noted the paradox that the ideal situation, where the woman freely chooses to have her child, occurs only if abortion is in fact possible. Abortion creates controversy because the relation of internal otherness that obtains between the woman and the fetus makes their status of full humanity mutually exclusive. Anyone actually able to, that is. The real controversy begins when out of physical incapacity, fear, ignorance, or lack of opportunity, the potential suicide requires the assistance of another.
Murder is the most unambiguous crime because it is the most flagrant violation of moral reciprocity.
Thus far this argument has not been publicly contested in the general case. The Supreme Court is being asked to rule concerning the terminally ill, those for whom medical opinion predicts at most a few more months of life. The next step, most think, will be to extend the right to die to those who suffer from painful or incapacitating chronic diseases that severely diminish their capacity to enjoy life. In giving credence to the former, we treat the latter as not a full participant in humanity and therefore not deserving of the full protection of the law. Once the soul has thus been separated from the body, we can allow this soul to transfer at least part of its power of action to another without penalty.