Museum pieces

Margaret Somerville says, "Legalizing euthanasia causes death and dying to lose the moral context within which they must be viewed." The moral context to which she refers is the presumption of an inviolable sanctity of life; and the slippery slope of legalization she invokes is one wherein this putative sanctity loses its trumping force in moral decision-making. This is, of course, all old hat -- her argument might even be described as quaint but for its often deleterious impact on people's lives and deaths.

Even if life had some such sanctity, contra Somerville, considerations of pain and suffering, social isolation, autonomy, and, yes, even health care costs could provide relevant grounds for overriding it. But the putative sanctity of life is merely a religious relic: a museum piece rather than the centerpiece of serious public -- or even academic -- debate.

Yes, euthanasia legislation is a thorny business. A delicate balance needs to be found between respecting autonomy in life and death decisions, preventing abuse, and protecting lives that remain valuable to those leading them. And uncomfortable as it may be, the costs of sustaining unsalvageable lives may relevant as well. Reverting to a medieval morality, as Somerville would have us do, is unlikely to be of much help here.

Note: now that Rex has gone (at least from the pages of the G&M), I seem to be reduced to criticizing various Margarets. To any charge of sexism that might ensue, I simply appeal to the authority of Margaret Wente when she "argues" that "silent sexism" is a mere chimera created for self-interested reasons by the victimization industry.