When the big questions of life and death are asked, we often fall back on fundamental beliefs about the absolute rights and freedom of the individual. This is particularly true of the question of whether someone should be able to die at a time of their own choosing. The wants and feelings of individuals are seen to have priority, over and above other moral concerns.
But are the basic assumptions of such liberal individualism wrong? The libertarian argument for euthanasia and assisted suicide is attractive on the surface, but once it is questioned more deeply, its foundations and implications are troubling.
Former South Australian Liberal Senator Amanda Vanstone made a good display of a libertarian argument earlier this month: 'You shouldn't be able to take another person's life. But your own life is yours.' This line exemplifies the libertarian creed. However, most people do not apply it consistently.
Would we apply the same line of thinking to a teenager experiencing bullying? Or a Jehovah's Witness refusing a life-saving blood transfusion? Or a bread-winner who has lost their job and meaning in life? It is reasonable to regard any deaths that result from these circumstances as tragic, and as incumbent upon us as a society to prevent them. Why, then, allow and facilitate the deaths or suicides of the elderly or terminally ill?
Suffering and freedom are usually the top answers to this question. The libertarian argument focuses on freedom — that people should be able to control their own lives and avoid suffering. It is clear that no one has complete control over their lives all the time and can avoid all suffering. But should we be able to avoid unnecessary suffering?
In answer to this question, the libertarian argument for assisted suicide meets some problems. It inadvertently undermines liberty and individualism, and becomes fundamentally about compelling others.
Assisted suicide is not just a matter of being given a 'choice'. There is a whole system that would need to be created, with drug researchers and manufacturers, hospitals, doctors, nurses, lawyers, politicians and family members all involved in facilitating this choice. Is this a fair thing to ask? Should we be enlisting the liberty of all these people to facilitate this choice?
"These changes would affect how the elderly or dying elderly see themselves, particularly those who feel pressured or lack support at the end of their lives."
The idea that some people should be able to compel the rest of us to legitimise or facilitate their death is also naive. What might be the unintended consequences of creating and maintaining all this activity around assisted suicide? How might it affect or change our freedom?
Such a system brings about consequences that will be borne by those remaining alive, not those dead. Those consequences usually include changes to the doctor-patient relationship and the health and legal system as well as neglect of the palliative care system. It also includes the high possibility of abuses that compel or lead to the deaths of the dying and elderly who didn't want to die.
Based on evidence of existing euthanasia and assisted suicide regimes, the chairman of New Zealand's parliamentary commission into euthanasia, Simon O'Connor, remarked: 'It is very difficult to see how there could be sufficient safeguards to actually protect vulnerable people in New Zealand. And that's been the experience overseas as well. It probably comes down to the simple question of "How many errors would Parliament be willing to accept in this space?"'
There are also the underlying changes to how life, death and hope are constructed in a society. These changes will affect how the elderly or dying elderly see themselves, particularly those who feel pressured or lack support at the end of their lives. It also sends a message about life and suffering to everyone, which has led to the expansion of euthanasia and assisted suicide to the young or those in distress in some countries.
In her piece, Vanstone also invoked God to help her libertarian position, claiming God would not be too concerned by euthanasia and would not want humans to police people's lives. This is a poor construction of God.
For Christians, God is deeply concerned for each of us and for our good. This concern is not about 'policing' our lives, but about calling us to deeply respect them and live them to the fullest. This means everyone is entitled to the best medical care to alleviate their pain, which our medical system can do with a high degree of efficiency if proper care is given. This does not mean unnecessarily prolonging life.
It also means not seeking to have absolute control over one's own life or another's life. To kill or assist someone to kill themselves is to take absolute control over a life. For the state to license this sort of control over a person's life is unprecedented and means opening the possibility of state-sanctioned abuses.
Moreover, to cut off life means missing potential moments of self-revelation and opportunities for care and solidarity from others, especially from family. I remember that, when my grandmother was dying, though it was a difficult time, our opportunity to show love and care for her as a family was an unexpected blessing.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not as simple as they seem. Libertarian arguments ultimately fail to deal with the complexity of life, liberty and love.
Joel Hodge is a lecturer in theology at the Australian Catholic University.