"The groundwork of all happiness is health." - Leigh Hunt

Why Fears About Coercion May Be Exaggerated – A Philosopher's View

Recently the UK Parliament's Assisted Dying Bill Passed his second studies. In the House of Commons, the vote was 330 in favor and 275 against. But the bill still has several hurdles to beat before it becomes law. It is being scrutinized ahead of the subsequent parliamentary vote in April.

Many oppose the bill on the grounds that the risks of coercion are too great. Opponents of the bill make much of this point. But as an ethical philosopher who investigates the values ​​of life and death, I believe it is necessary to ask what exactly is oppression? Where can we encounter it? And is it as bad because it sounds?

Check a Dictionary And coercion seems to incorporate force, threats, physical pressure and coercion. But the widespread concern about assisted dying is about something subtle. It's about undue influence – effective but often hidden – over someone's actions.

There is definitely a risk that somebody can be forced, pressured or persuaded to finish their life when what they actually need – and what’s best for them – is to live. But it shouldn’t be one-sided.

Equally, they could be forced or pressured to proceed living, when what they actually need, and what’s best for them, is to die. And I consider that – controversial point, this – unwanted life is worse. Die too early and also you're simply deprived of happiness, too late and also you suffer more.

Does this issue of coercion arise only in relation to assisted dying? And can we avoid this by rejecting this bill? Hardly. I’ll pressure you or induce you to commit suicide, sign a do-not-resuscitate notice, or refuse further medical treatment, which can be harder to detect than when Teams of doctors and lawyers are involved. But none suggest the risks of misuse mean these procedures ought to be outlawed.

Is oppression bad? Of course, it may well be. But one really desires to do what one mustn’t do. And in that case it’s definitely permissible to steer or pressure them to do otherwise.

People will wish to die when it might not be of their best interests – or society's, more broadly – ​​to die. Equally, they are going to wish to survive when it shouldn’t be the perfect.

Arguably, they have to then be pressured or persuaded to do things they don't wish to do, and thus sometimes fight to finish their lives.

Let us agree that there may be some danger of coercion and of the evil or illegitimate kind. Should we do all the pieces we are able to to eliminate this risk – reduce it to zero? Well, it depends.

There is a few risk, at any time when I get behind the wheel, that I’ll cause an accident. Easy fix – complete ban on driving. No one seriously recommends this, as the prices can be prohibitively high. Allowing people to drive has multiple advantages for society at large, even once we know that some people will drive recklessly, dangerously, under the influence, and cause death.

So then we compromise, manage the chance, and produce it all the way down to an appropriate level. A giant a part of that is making people aware that the penalties for distracted driving may be substantial. The same ought to be true of other end-of-life issues and it ought to be made abundantly clear that suspicious deaths will all the time be investigated.

So whether you poison your wealthy and sick relatives, force them to commit suicide, or force doctors to help and hasten their deaths, you should fear being caught and punished.

Kim Ledbetter's Assisted Dying Bill passed for the second time within the House of Commons.
Ian Davidson/Almy Stock Photo

Is higher palliative care the one solution?

Still Some argue That unless there are real advantages to allowing someone to die and helping more, then the risks of abuse, irrespective of how small, mustn’t be tolerated.

All dying, they are saying, may be painless and free from suffering. We just must expand palliative care. And then all this hastening to death can be illegitimate, all efforts to steer one to live, despite one's will, can be justified. But not only can we doubt that pain can all the time be avoided, we can even think that there are various other ways through which life may be unbearable.

So the arguments against the Assisted Dying Bill on each counts are usually not as effective as opponents would have us consider. Oppression shouldn’t be as bad or an issue because it is made out to be. Nor is palliative care — though it definitely has its place — the answer.