Recently, I’ve blogged twice my views on the right to die, here and here. In summary:
- I should have the right to refuse medical treatment, even if I would die without it. [* * *]
- If I’m incapacitated, my wife should have the right to decide whether I receive medical treatment, even if I would die without it. [* * *]
- If my wife has caused my incapacitation, she should not have the right to decide whether I receive medical treatment. [* * *]
It all seems very simple, but the devil’s in the details. I spent the last two articles discussing a few of the difficulties with these simple propositions. Let’s take the argument one step farther. Depending on your definitions of “incapacity” and “medical treatment,” you may be well on your way down the slippery slope to euthanasia. If you believe feeding is medical treatment and that incapacity is defined by the inability to respond coherently, then starving infants and senile elderly people becomes a right to die issue, not murder.
My wife and I cared for her grandmother years ago. We had to feed her as though she was an infant. Although she seemed lucid at times, once she treated me to a story of her going over Niagara Falls in a barrel. And she was serious. Should we have been able to just not feed her? Would that be a painless way to go?
Before you answer, consider this: she ultimately died after refusing to eat.
No one said these issues are easy…
