Common Ground for Proponents & Opponents to Aid in Dying?

Syracuse disability rights activist and scholar Bill Peace has a new post despairing whether it will ever be possible to build a bridge between advocates and opponents to aid in dying.  He writes, "I think any sort of common ground will never be found."



Bill correctly identifies me as an defender of patient choice and liberty.  Indeed, I have defended AID, VSED, and other means to hasten death, if that is what the patient really wants.  But I try to be circumspect.  Each week, I read and listen to right-to-life, disability, and other opponents to the availability of these measures.  For example, this weekend, I attended the "Imposed Death" conference and heard some powerful and compelling stories.



I concede that mistakes are made.  Here are just two types.  First, someone may hasten her death, because she "understands" the prognosis to be dim.  But that prognosis may be wrong.  She may actually have years of reasonably healthy life left.  Clinicians can rarely be 100% sure.  



Second, there may be coercion and duress on the part of those self-interested by inheritance or on the part of those motivated by prejudice and bias.  The current safeguards and oversight mechanisms do not wholly eliminate such risks.



I do not disagree with right-to-life and disability opponents on the "existence" of these risks.  (Perhaps we disagree on their prevalence.)  Instead, I think the main point of our disagreement concerns how to respond to these risks.  Opponents think that the appropriate response is to ban AID outright.  That way, it cannot be misused or abused.



But such an approach denies the choice to those who make a free, informed, and voluntary decision for AID.  Our society almost never bans choices for the many just because allowing those options creates risks for the few.  For example, guns are abused.  But we do not ban them for everyone else.



Here are two questions on which I think opponents and proponents might have a fruitful discussion:



1.  Is wholly eliminating AID the least restrictive alternative for mitigating risks of misuse and abuse?  Can we instead design and implement sufficient safeguards against coercion, duress, and manipulation?



2.  Assuming that adequate safeguards are unworkable or impractical, should AID be banned.  In 2013, only 122 Oregonians requested AID and only 71 actually proceeded.  Do the risks to other Oregonians justify denying the AID option to these 122?