Medical aid in dying, and slippery slopes--the debate in Britain

 The Oxford blog Practical Ethics considers medical aid in dying (MAID), and the slippery slope arguments that accompany current debates on the subject in Britain.

Medical assistance in dying: what are we talking about? By Alberto Giubilini, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics

"Medical assistance in dying  – or “MAiD”,  to use the somehow infelicitous acronym – is likely to be a central topic in bioethics this year. That might not be true of bioethics as an academic field, where MAiD has been widely discussed over the past 40 years. But it is likely true of bioethics as a wider societal and political area of discussion. There are two reasons to think this.  First, the topic has attracted a lot of attention the last year, especially with “slippery slope” concerns around Canada’s policies. Second, MAiD has recently been in the news in the UK, where national elections will take place in 2024.  It is not hard to imagine it will feature in the heated political polarization that always accompanies election campaigns

...

"Canada is often taken as the best example in support of ‘slippery slope’ arguments against legalizing MAiD. According to these arguments, even assuming MAiD was acceptable in some form, legalization would open the door to clearly wrong or problematic practices down the line. For instance, legalizing physician-assisted suicide in cases of “unbearable suffering” for someone whose death is reasonably foreseeable in the short term might lead to relaxing our attitudes towards MAiD for those suffering only from mental illness. In the bioethics literature, slippery slope arguments against MAiD have often been put forward and traditionally been dismissed as fallacious, overly cautious, or easily addressable (for an overview and a critical appraisal, see Fumagalli 2020).  However, contrary to the prevailing view, they are not necessarily fallacious in nature (Walton 1992). To many people, Canada is a case in point, calling for a more nuanced take.

"Canada started off by decriminalizing medical assistance in dying in 2016. In 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec found the “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” unconstitutional as an eligibility criterion for MAiD. The criterion was removed in 2021, making MAiD available for patients without terminal illness. From March 2024, patients suffering solely from mental illness will also be able to legally access MAiD. According to Government data, nearly 45,000 people died through MAiD in Canada from 2016 to 2022. Between 2020 and 2022, the number of requests for MAiD increased on average by 28% per year. At the same time, the number of patients found ineligible consistently declined from 8% in 2019 to 3.4% in 2022.

...

"One question is about whether suicide is morally permissible. As mentioned, many religious  and non religious views consider suicide in most cases morally impermissible. However, the moral impermissibility of suicide is not a decisive reason against legalizing MAiD. More important is whether suicide is a right and, if so, what type of right it is. That is a different type of question, because arguably we often have the right to do morally wrong things (Waldron 1982). I might have a right to kill myself even if suicide is morally wrong.

...

"I have not provided any answer to any of these questions here. I just want to point out that some of the differences in ethical and religious views about suicide or about the right to end one’s own life are less relevant to a debate on MAiD than one might initially assume.

"At the same time, many concerns around slippery slopes are more relevant than one might initially assume. As a matter of fact and of logic, MAiD legislations tend to expand by extending their eligibility criteria. When debating MAiD legislations, we need to ask if we are prepared for that."

Medical aid in dying in Canada doesn't require a terminal diagnosis--should it?

 Repugnance to medical aid in dying is sharpest when death isn't otherwise imminent.  Canada allows patients with irremediable pain to qualify for MAID (qualifying in this way is called Track 2).  Here's a thoughtful article in the NYT about some of the issues.

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?
Paula Ritchie wasn’t dying, but under Canada’s new rules, she qualified for a medically assisted death. Was that kindness or cruelty?   By Katie Engelhart 

"While a Track 1 patient could technically apply for and receive MAID within a day, the process for Track 2 was slower; there had to be at least 90 days from the start of the assessment to the patient’s death. Each patient was assessed by two independent clinicians, and if neither of the assessing clinicians had expertise in the patient’s medical condition, they had to consult with a clinician who did. The patient requesting assisted death also had to be informed of “the reasonable and available means” to relieve the suffering — and to give “serious consideration” to those means.

"By law, a MAID patient had to be suffering in some way. The suffering could come either directly from the medical condition or indirectly from the condition’s follow-on effects. It could be either physical or psychological, as long as it was “enduring.” The law did not define exactly what it meant to suffer, or exactly how a medical professional was meant to evaluate the suffering. It was up to individual clinicians to figure out, in conversation with their patients. In a “Model Practice Standard” published by Health Canada, the country’s federal health regulator, MAID assessors were instructed to “respect the subjectivity of suffering.”

"For other clinicians, the concern about Track 2 was more philosophical. Dr. Madeline Li, a cancer psychiatrist who developed the MAID program for Toronto’s University Health Network and who has personally overseen hundreds of Track 1 patients, told me that she was hesitant to involve herself in Track 2 because it didn’t fit with her larger understanding of medicine and its purpose. “If you want to allow people to end their lives when they want to, then put suicide kits in hardware stores, right?” Li told me. It was not “assistance in dying” if the patient was not actually dying.

...

"The most organized critique of Canada’s law came from disability rights advocates. In September 2024, two people with disabilities and several nonprofit organizations announced a legal challenge to Bill C-7. Their case argues that, by definition, all Track 2 MAID patients are disabled — people with medical conditions that limit daily functioning — and thus, that the law is discriminatory. If a nondisabled person is suffering and wants to die, her desire will be understood as pathological, and she will be offered suicide prevention. If a disabled person is suffering and wants to die, her doctor will hand her the proverbial gun.

...

“I’m certainly not going to argue that the system is in good shape,” Wonnacott said. He tended to receive criticism of MAID with equanimity. Of course the system was broken. Of course people ended up on the wrong side of it. And of course the government should work urgently to improve it. But then again, it was the system. There was no other system on offer. “And to force people to continue suffering as we wait an indefinite amount of time to fix it is unfair.” Sure, in any given MAID assessment, Wonnacott could allow himself to get caught up in the past conditional of what should have been done, what could have been. But there was the suffering patient sitting in front of him, here and now, wanting an answer.

"Wonnacott also disagreed with the solution that the critics offered: to shut it all down. Fundamentally, he didn’t think the best way to protect poor and marginalized patients was to force them to stay alive, because in some counterfactual version of events, in which the world was a better and more just place, they might have chosen differently. That wasn’t how anything in medicine worked; a doctor always treated the patient as she was. How could it be otherwise? If only those who were rich or well connected were recognized to have autonomy and allowed to choose?

...

"The critics seemed to imply that a few hundred Track 2 deaths each year were, together, taking the pressure off government officials to improve the system. And that, inversely, if enough people who wanted to die were instead forced to live, their suffering would create the moral imperative for a wide-reaching social-welfare revolution. Wonnacott and his colleagues thought this seemed unlikely. As it was, Canada had more publicly funded health care than many other countries."

Informed consent and mortal sin, in the case of Medical Aid in Dying

 Studying morally contested transactions doesn't always suggest paths by which consensus might be reached. It often suggests that conflicting views may be irreconcilable. 

That seems to be the case for the growing legalization of Medical Aid in Dying (MAID, also called medically assisted suicide), about which I've recently blogged several times.  

MAID laws face determined religious opposition.  When Hawaii legalized MAID in 2018, the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu issued some guidance to clergy pointing out that the law's requirements for informed consent seemed to coincide with the requirements for a sin to be a mortal sin.

 Diocese of Honolulu November 5, 2018: Instruction Regarding Sacraments and Funerals In Situations Involving Physician Assisted Suicide for Clergy, Parish Staff and Ministers to the Sick and Homebound
“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], no. 2280)

...

7."For a sin to be a mortal sin, three conditions must be fulfilled:

•  the matter must be grave,
•  the person must have knowledge of the gravity of the matter, and
•  the person must freely choose the matter after sufficient deliberation (see CCC, nos. 1857-1859).

8."The process required by the State of Hawaii for a person seeking medically assisted suicide is meant to guarantee that he or she is fully informed and has made a deliberate consent, thus likely fulfilling the requirements for mortal sin.

9." If a person dies in mortal sin without contrition, such final impenitence results in the “exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back” (CCC, no. 1861; see no. 1864)

 

HT: Julio Elias

Euthanasia in Canada

 The NYT columnist Ross Douthat considers the medical aid in dying policies in Canada, and warns us that conservative politics is what protects us against the slippery slope that might lead us down the Canadian path.

 What Euthanasia Has Done to Canada

"In recent years, Canada has established some of the world’s most permissive euthanasia laws, allowing adults to seek either physician-assisted suicide or direct euthanasia for many different forms of serious suffering, not just terminal disease. In 2021, over 10,000 people ended their lives this way, just over 3 percent of all deaths in Canada. A further expansion, allowing euthanasia for mental-health conditions, will go into effect in March 2023; permitting euthanasia for “mature” minors is also being considered.

...

"The rules of civilization necessarily include gray areas. It is not barbaric for the law to acknowledge hard choices in end-of-life care, about when to withdraw life support or how aggressively to manage agonizing pain.

"It is barbaric, however, to establish a bureaucratic system that offers death as a reliable treatment for suffering and enlists the healing profession in delivering this “cure.” And while there may be worse evils ahead, this isn’t a slippery slope argument: When 10,000 people are availing themselves of your euthanasia system every year, you have already entered the dystopia.

"Indeed, according to a lengthy report by Maria Cheng of The Associated Press, the Canadian system shows exactly the corrosive features that critics of assisted suicide anticipated, from health care workers allegedly suggesting euthanasia to their patients to sick people seeking a quietus for reasons linked to financial stress.

...

"in the Canadian experience you can see what America might look like with real right-wing power broken and a tamed conservatism offering minimal resistance to social liberalism. And the dystopian danger there seems not just more immediate than any right-authoritarian scenario, but also harder to resist — because its features are congruent with so many other trends, its path smoothed by so many powerful institutions.

...

"without a potent conservatism, the cultural balance tilts too much against these doubts. And the further de-Christianization proceeds, the stronger the impulse to ... rationalize the new order with implicit reassurances that it’s what some higher power wants.

"It’s often treated as a defense of euthanasia that the most intense objections come from biblical religion. But spiritual arguments never really disappear, and the liberal order in a dystopian twilight will still be infused by some kind of religious faith.

"So I remain a conservative, unhappily but determinedly, because only conservatism seems to offer a stubborn obstacle to that dystopia"

*********

Update, January 14: in a followup column, Douthat responds to supporters of Canada's euthanasia policies,* and summarizes his position with this concluding sentence: 

"And if euthanasia is kept within limits or rolled back from its advances, I suspect it will be the old taboos and Christian prohibitions that make the difference, not a libertarianism that so quickly and easily yields to pagan destinations."

*See in particular

Canadian Euthanasia as Moral Progress. Individual liberty, the common good, and human dignity. by Richard Hanania

Here's a summary paragraph:

"First, I will show that the MAID program is currently small, and likely represents cases of the most extreme suffering given the data that we have. I then go on to refute arguments against MAID that have appeared in the popular press. Sometimes, these arguments are simply false, as when it is claimed that it will eventually lead to large numbers of healthy young adults killing themselves with state sanction. Other times, the arguments may be correct but actually make the case for euthanasia. It is true, for example, that some people might feel “pressured” to commit suicide because they don’t want to be burdens on their families or the government. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this — in practically every other kind of situation, it is usually considered pro-social to care about the impact your life has on others. This gets to the point that my support for euthanasia does not simply rest on libertarian and utilitarian grounds, but also on the idea that people should behave in ways that consider the common good and that, yes, preserve human dignity. The state’s interest in saving costs, as long as it’s going to pay for healthcare, is also legitimate, although I won’t dwell on that here."

Medically assisted suicide.

Several recent stories caught my eye on the controversial subject of medically assisted suicide, aka death with dignity, medical assistance in dying (MAID), and some other names.

He died by suicide in front of Alberta’s legislature. He said he wanted to bring attention to Medical Assistance in Dying   By Nadine Yousif, Star Edmonton, Sat., Dec. 7, 2019

"In his own final moments, Chan, 62, wanted people to know about the struggles of his loved ones, and how increased access to medical assistance in dying could help many end what may otherwise be a lifetime of suffering."
***********

The Champion Who Picked a Date to Die by ANDREW KEH, NY Times, Dec. 5, 2019

"Knowing she had the legal right to die helped Marieke Vervoort live her life. It propelled her to medals at the Paralympics. But she could never get away from the pain.
Andrew Keh and Lynsey Addario spent almost three years reporting on Marieke Vervoort as she and her parents wrestled with her decision to die by euthanasia. They visited her multiple times at home and in hospital stays in Belgium, and accompanied her on trips to the Canary Islands and Japan."
***********

Aid in Dying Soon Will be Available to More Americans. Few Will Choose It.
By October, more than one in five U.S. adults will be able to obtain lethal prescriptions if terminally ill. But for those who try, obstacles remain.
By Paula Span, July 8, 2019  NY Times

Medical aid in dying bill advances (controversially) in New York State

 A bill to legalize Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) in New York state has passed the Assembly and been referred to the Senate (after which it would go to the Governor for signature).  It's controversial, so I don't have a good sense of whether it will become law.

Here's the text of the bill itself, on the NY State Assembley page: "Medical Aid in Dying Act"

Here's a well written article summarizing the controversy, and ultimately opposing the bill in its present form.

Will New York Soon Make It Too Easy to Die?   By Madeleine Kearns

"In April, New York’s “Medical Aid in Dying Act” passed the state assembly by a vote of 81 to 67. It has until the end of the legislative session—June 12—to face a vote in the Senate. On Thursday, June 5, Senate majority leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said she believed there were enough votes for the legislation to pass and “it is likely that it will come to the floor.” Perhaps as soon as Monday, June 9.

If the legislation passes, New York would join the 11 other states that have legalized assisted dying in various forms. (It is also legal in the District of Columbia.) For those who have seen difficult deaths or are daunted by the prospect, the kind of death Nancy describes—peaceful and pain-free—is what they are hoping the law will all but guarantee.

But those opposed to assisted suicide—their preferred term—warn that such laws endanger the vulnerable by reshaping social norms so that, for some, the right to die becomes a duty to die. Moreover, New York’s legislation, they argue, is on the “outer edge” of liberalization, eliminating safeguards that exist in other states where medical aid in dying (MAID) is legal."

Telehealth restrictions and medical aid in dying/death with dignity

 Medical aid in dying (MAID) is now available to some extent in eleven U.S. jurisdictions (10 States and the District of Columbia), mostly with the requirement that eligible patients are within six months of dying naturally.  So these patients are pretty ill, which makes it difficult for some of them--particularly rural patients--to schedule in-person final appointments with their physicians, to receive the drugs that they will take.  Telehealth appointments and prescriptions have been important for these patients, and those may be going away.

Statnews has the story:

Dying patients protest looming telehealth crackdown By JoNel Aleccia 

"Online prescribing rules for controlled drugs were relaxed three years ago under emergency waivers to ensure critical medications remained available during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has proposed a rule that would reinstate most previously longstanding requirements that doctors see patients in person before prescribing narcotic drugs such as Oxycontin, amphetamines such as Adderall, and a host of other potentially dangerous drugs.

"The aim is to reduce improper prescribing of these drugs by telehealth companies that boomed during the pandemic. Given the ongoing opioid epidemic, allowing continued broad use of telemedicine prescribing “would pose too great a risk to the public health and safety,” the proposed rule said. It also cracks down on how doctors can prescribe other less-addictive drugs, like Xanax, used to treat anxiety, and buprenorphine, a narcotic used to treat opioid addiction.

...

"The proposal has sparked a massive backlash, including more than 35,000 comments to a federal portal and calls from advocates, members of Congress and medical groups to reconsider certain patients or provisions.

“They completely forgot that there was a population of people who are dying,” said Dr. Lonny Shavelson, a California physician who chairs the American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying, a coalition of doctors who help patients access care under so-called right-to-die laws.

"Among the biggest complaints: The rule would delay or block access for patients who seek medically assisted suicide and hospice care, critics said. Many of the comments — including nearly 10,000 delivered in person to DEA offices — came from doctors and patients protesting the effect of the rule on seriously ill and dying patients."