Risk of Abuse to the Few Does Not Justify Limiting Liberty of the Many

One leading argument in opposition to the legalization of aid-in-dying is the risk that some might be pressured to, or otherwise involuntarily or non-voluntarily, hasten their deaths.  But all the available evidence indicates that this is a very, very small risk.  Moreover, it is one that can be mitigated through tested safeguards far less restrictive and liberty-limiting than an outright ban.  



I am reminded of Representative Brian J. Donnelly (D-Mass.).  He was one of the few opponents to the Patient Self Determination Act of 1990.  The PSDA had little opposition, because it created no controversial substantive rights.  It only obligates providers to inform patients of their already existing rights under state regarding advance directives.  But Representative Donnelly feared that health care providers might pressure poor people to sign advance directives as a means to discontinue treatment.  



Donnelly's fear never materialized.  Fortunately, the mere prospect of abuse was not enough to defeat the education of more than 100 million patients.  Similarly, it now seems that the mere prospect of AID abuse to the few is increasingly weakening as a ground to defeat the liberty of many others to have more control at the end of their lives.