Can murder be moral? | American Council on Science and Health

In general, euthanasia (the active but painless killing of another human being to end their suffering) and assisted suicide are prohibited. However, in some places both practices are legal. Dr. Josh from ACSH told us about an option that is legal in Switzerlandwhich is a peaceful, painless, and seemingly luxurious version of nitrogen asphyxiation. So if killing another for noble reasons without pain is legal in one place but illegal in another, such as New York, can the perpetrator defend himself with morality? Will a noble motive ever erase the crime?

In recent years, there has been a liberalisation of legal restrictions on suicide worldwide, whether alone or with medical assistance. Nevertheless, suicide remains illegal in 17 countries, and until recently it was illegal in some states (e.g. Virginia). For those who succeed, there is not much that can be done to punish them, so at first glance the laws seem pointless and the deterrent value is irrelevant. Nevertheless, about 20 countries imprison those poor souls who survive despite their attempts, and some states still consider it tried Suicide is illegal.

But imprisonment for failed suicide and religious ostracism do not seem to be much of a deterrent, as suicide rates appear to be rising (though temporarily declining during the pandemic). National Criminal Records Bureau in 2009, rose to 134,799 in 2013, with a 37% increase from 2000 to 2022. In 2022, nearly 49,000 people died by suicide, which equates to one death every 11 minutes. Most of these were due to family problems and illness, but drug abuse/addiction, failed romantic relationships, financial ruin and poverty also contribute to the increased incidence, which in some cases has been encouraged by the “law” turning a blind eye.

RIP Doreen Brodhead:

A few months ago, an 85-year-old former doctor traveled to New York to help Doreen Broadhead commit suicide. According to her daughter, 59-year-old Ms. Broadhead had been in pain for decades. But even in states that allow physician-assisted suicide (sometimes called MAiD, medical assistance in dying), Ms. Broadhead would not have been legally entitled to a shortened life: Her chronic neck and back pain were not fatal. And she did not have less than six months to live. In fact, at 59, she had a life expectancy of two decades. But she still wanted to die, at least according to reports.

Unwilling to leave her life to chance, last November Ms. Broadhead hired former doctor Stephen Miller (a member of Choice and Dignity, an Arizona-based assisted suicide group), who had experience assisting suicide using a stripped-down version of the spa-like Swiss Nitrogen pod—nitrogen asphyxiation. The trial was a success.

Miller, the man who bought the nitrous oxide canister found on Ms Brodhead's bed, was charged with manslaughter and assault, as assisted suicide in any form is illegal in New York. Miller's lawyer claimed his client acted compassionately – and “did nothing morally wrong.” Perhaps law enforcement agreed, the 85-year-old pleaded guilty to manslaughter and the assault charge was dropped. He was sentenced to five years' probation, meaning he is free and available, possibly for remote counseling. At least for now, remote counseling is not considered a crime.

However, Miller would not have been immune from prosecution even in states that allow MAiD. This law gives that option only to doctors, on the assumption that their loyalty to the Hippocratic Oath provides additional protection to patients and that they are best placed to determine the best medical treatment for the patient. Miller's medical license was revoked years ago: the law deemed him unfit to treat patients. Should he now be allowed to kill them, no matter how old he is?

And while some find the lax approach of law enforcement reprehensible, ignoring the practice is nothing new. As Daniel Defoe recounts in his quasi-fictional history of the bubonic plague epidemic, [1] from 1665,

“Nurses who cared for infected people … hastened their end, that is, they murdered [sic] of them. …. and I believe two were sent to prison for it, … and I have heard that three others … were acquitted of murder of this kind, … but I must say I do not believe it to be so common a crime as some used to say afterward, … where people were so degraded that they could not help themselves, for such seldom recovered, and there was no temptation to commit murder, at least none equal to the fact that they were sure that the people would die in so short a time and could not survive.”

Of course, bubonic plague would qualify for MAiD (i.e., immediate death through the assistance of a physician), and alleviating the terrible suffering caused by this disease would be considered compassionate in any case.

The law sounds in

The dilemma in Ms. Brodhead's case is that, without Miller's intervention, she might have been able to live for decades more, however questionable the quality of those years might have been. Sentencing someone to life because of one's personal belief that any life is better than no life, as many courts use, seems heartless, if not narcissistic.

Nevertheless, loosening the absolute sanctity of human life (i.e. condoning killing people if someone so desires) leads to a never-ending spiral; a lax attitude towards life could facilitate actual murders or allow law enforcement to turn a blind eye when investigating questionable cases. In fact, death by laughing gas seems to be a popular means of murder, at least in crime novels (1). On the other hand, Curzon In this case, the Supreme Court recognized that individuals

“fundamental natural right … to refuse artificial life-prolonging procedures or to order their omission or termination when the person no longer has cognitive brain functions … and there is no hope of further recovery.”

The challenge for courts, if not for the clergy, is to protect the living from nefarious motives disguised as compassion. This may manifest itself in doctors imposing their preferences on unfortunate patients, or in noble elderly or infirm parents being tempted to relieve their children of the moral “obligation” to care for them by ending their lives early. Establishing a certain, unambiguous and uncoerced intention remains crucial.

Changed circumstances

But there is also the possibility that, through changing circumstances, a life once deemed unworthy of living can be transformed into one that serves a noble mission. Consider award-winning actor Christopher Reeves (aka Superman), who was thrown from his horse, paralyzed from the neck down, and unable to breathe for a long time without a ventilator. At first he wanted to die, but it was only the urging of his family that changed his mind. It took two years of intensive therapy and support before he could finally say he was glad to be alive, and then went on to live for seven more productive years.

Isolated exceptions to a once absolute philosophical framework?

Let us consider the case of Dr. Anna Pouwho was arrested for murder after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. As the last doctor on duty at the flooded, dilapidated Memorial Hospital, with no electricity, no elevators, humid temperatures reaching 100 degrees and a foul stench, Dr. Pou diligently cared for the patients who were the last to be evacuated. And then there were the patients who couldn't be evacuated at all. Those were later found dead – with drugs in their systems that experts say were used to put them to sleep. Dr. Pou claims she was simply trying to relieve her pain and anxiety. The Attorney General charged her with murder. (The Attorney General declined to prosecute without a special grand jury indictment – which was not returned. She was sued for civil liability anyway.)

In some cases, the law intervenes and allows euthanasia when the patient's wishes are clear. In Dr. Pou's case, patients were never asked if they wanted to die. But perhaps it was an act of compassion not to give them that choice, and not to tell them that their only alternative was to remain alone in these horrific conditions. Nevertheless, the law insists on a clear expression of will. At the Memorial, the only expressions of will were the dead patients' instructions to the DNR. Their relatives claimed this meant “Do not resuscitate” – not “Do not save.”

Assigning blame for moral behavior remains the job of religion. But respect for the law is the foundation of society. While the conflict between law and morality is played out, patients suffer. It has been argued that the resources available to Chris Reeves are not available to most of us, which downplays his example. But perhaps the law could better use the resources now used to restrict legitimate painkillers to loosen their use and better relieve pain, giving patients more options and a better life. And perhaps, instead of focusing on expanding the right to a dignified death, more resources could be spent on helping patients. live with dignity.

[1] A diary from the year of the plague by Daniel Defoe