Stephen G. Potts: Objections to the Institutionalization of Euthanasia

The institutionalization (i.e. the legalization) of voluntary active euthanasia was a fierce topic of debate in the past two decades, but the legislative outcome was clear: there would be no nationally sanctioned euthanasia. Stephen Potts outlines a case against the institutionalization of euthanasia by enumerating the various societal risks in legalized practice, and declaring that the burden of proof rests on those seeking to gamble on such risks to legislate it.

He begins his argument by suggesting that accepting euthanasia is an impetus for weaker initiative in improving curative treatment, citing that several diseases were once considered terminal in years past (a fact that has changed since); he infers from this that earlier complacence with assisted termination would have meant complacency in medical methods! In addition, Potts finds that euthanizing patients abandons all hope for their recoveries, reducing chance of miracle recovery from small to none, while at the same time increasing fears of potential patients to even make a showing for diagnosis, thereby increasing risk of death due to prolonged lack of treatment. These are undoubtedly seemingly minor and remote results, but still carry weight in their consequences. Potts also assesses the role of doctors in euthanasia, questions their abilities to remain so robust as to be fortuitous life-savers while at the same time life-takers by request, and attacks the possible impotence of a system properly and effectively overseeing any of these operations. Another instance likely to occur frequently is a decision to euthanize caused by influence on the patient from any outside source. This outside pressure combined with the legal outlet in assisted suicide adds a degree of guilt to the patients, placing upon them the consciousness of being a burden, whether they are welcome or not, and the death of many truly unwilling patients will occur as their right to die is replaced by their believed duty to die.

Potts contends that there are more problems than just this to be had in society at large with the coming of legalized euthanasia. Legalization would only mean broader moral and ethical acceptance, and likewise a farther distance from the common moral rule "you should not kill," and perhaps worse, will draw us closer to justifying worse things. After voluntary euthanasia, perhaps non voluntary euthanasia would be next in line! And with non voluntary euthanasia, would there then be a movement for the removal of the burdensome and unproductive entirely from society? There is a dangerous slope to be sliding down here. Potts distinguishes the "steps" of terminal medicine: CURE, the first goal; CARE, for when cure fails; KILL, for when CARE is no good; and CULL, the use of euthanasia to "filter out" society (and at the bottom of the slope is the Nazi euthanasia program). Lastly, medical costs alone place considerable pressure on society to consider euthanasia as an option, but these economic concerns will only broaden the category of those to be killed.

It is made clear that Potts is not ethically criticizing the individual act of euthanasia, declaring that a right to die, a right to refuse life-prolonging treatment, and a right to rational suicide are indeed acceptable. Proponents of euthanasia, however, seek to extend the right to die into a right to be killed, which causes an immediate array of vast complications. These risks present a compelling case that we, as a society, should not be favorably disposed to the institutionalization of euthanasia, despite the individual's right to it.

Source:

Potts, Stephen G. "Objections to the Institutionalization of Euthanasia" in Gold, Steven Jay. Moral Controversies: Race, Class and Gender in Applied Ethics. (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1992). p. 156.