Assisted Suicide, Living, and Dying Well

Assisted suicide and the ethics of living and dying well

Fresno Bee, June 25, 2016

Assisted suicide law prompts legal challenge
Suicide points toward important religious and philosophical disagreement
The meaning of life includes thinking about dying well

California’s End of Life Option law went into effect June 9. The law permits a physician to prescribe lethal medication to a patient with a terminal illness.

The law defines a terminal illness as “an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months.”

For some, this is a welcome expansion of the right to die with dignity. For others, it is a sign of a “culture of death.” In any case, the new law invites reflection on the meaning of dying and living well.

As the law went into effect, a lawsuit was filed aiming to block it. The plaintiffs include the American Academy of Medical Ethics, a conservative group that also is opposed to abortion and homosexuality.

The lawsuit contends terminal diagnoses often are not reliable. It states, “The business of prognosticating a patient’s future lifespan is inherently limited, if not altogether flawed.”

The lawsuit also worries that interested parties may coerce people into taking the suicide medication. Health care facilities or legal heirs may have a vested interest in seeing people die.

But the law makes it a felony to force someone to take the lethal medication. And it stipulates only one of the two mandatory witnesses can be an interested party.

The lawsuit views suicide as a mental health problem, connected to depression. From this perspective, suicide is irrational and people requesting it need psychological help, not access to deadly medicines.

This may explain why the California law maintains that the end of life option is not suicide. The law states, “Self-administration of an aid-in-dying drug is not suicide.” It explains, “Action taken in accordance with the act shall not constitute, among other things, suicide or homicide.”

The word “suicide” is laden with moral, emotional and legal significance. It remains illegal in California to abet a “suicide,” though the new law allows a doctor to prescribe “end of life” medication.

The euphemistic language of the legislation is unfortunate. It avoids the main ethical question, which is whether suicide is ever rational and morally permissible.

Some think suicide is always immoral. The Catholic tradition teaches that suicide is as wrong as murder. It rejects God’s sovereignty and refuses the commandment of self-love. Pope Francis recently argued that physician-assisted suicide was part of a “throwaway culture” linked to the “triumph of selfishness.”

Others disagree. A variety of traditions connect suicide to self-respect and rational autonomy. The Japanese code of the samurai – the bushido code – included ritual suicide in the face of dishonor. The ancient Roman Stoics had a similar idea.

The Stoic philosopher Seneca advised against clinging to life. He said, “The wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can.” He concluded, “ It is not a question of dying earlier or later, but of dying well or ill.”

There is no middle position in this conflict of morals. Some believe death should be freely chosen and that it is better to die well than to live poorly. Others view suicide as inherently sinful. On the one hand, we have rational autonomy and the attempt to die with dignity. On the other, we have an obligation to respect God’s will.

There is space for some agreement. Several of the points discussed above should be a concern even for advocates of assisted suicide. Coercion is a danger. Misdiagnoses are a problem. Suffering people need palliative care. And the dying need spiritual support.

We will continue to disagree about assisted suicide. But each of us only has one life to live and one death to endure. Regardless of the outcome of the legal dispute, everyone ought to think about the morality of suicide.

This issue opens deep questions about life, the universe, and everything. Is life a right or an obligation? Is life always worth living? Are you entitled to make decisions about the time and manner of your own death?

Those are not easy questions. A meaningful life involves struggling with them. A good death comes only after we’ve made peace with the question of what makes life worth living and what counts as living and dying well.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article85829697.html#storylink=cpy

June 18, 2016June 18, 2016

Disgust, Ethics, and Violence

Feelings of disgust can provide emotional cover for racism, homophobia

Fresno Bee, June 18, 2016

Negative emotions interfere with moral judgment
Hate and disgust directed toward homosexuals is wrong
Education opens the mind and subdues the emotions

Inside-Out-DisgustAF-crop Disgust is a dangerous emotion. Racism, homophobia and other kinds of hate are emotional responses, closely linked to feelings of disgust. Moral development requires the mind to break free of reactionary emotions and the violence they provoke.

The Orlando shooter supposedly was disgusted by homosexuality. He may also have been disgusted by his own homosexual tendencies. The result was atrocity.

While most of us shuddered and grieved in the aftermath, some applauded. A Sacramento preacher, Roger Jimenez,suggested the government should round up homosexuals and “blow their brains out.” He said homosexuality is “disgusting.” Another preacher, Steven Anderson from Phoenix, welcomed the Orlando shootings as good news. He said, “Homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.”

These preachers claim that their hate is grounded in biblical principles. But the use of the word disgust points in a different direction. Disgust comes from the body. It is not the result of rational argument or biblical exegesis.

DISGUST COMES FROM THE BODY. IT IS NOT THE RESULT OF RATIONAL ARGUMENT OR BIBLICAL EXEGESIS.

Some ethicists claim that disgust is morally relevant. In bioethics, disgust has been identified as a source of insight. Leon Kass, a prominent bioethicist, suggests that the “yuck factor” points toward what he calls “the wisdom of repugnance.” When discussing human cloning, for example, Kass warns, “shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.”

But the shudder of the soul is merely a gut reaction. Disgust can be traced back to the body’s flight-or-fight response. It is related to fear of the foreign and unfamiliar. It is connected to anxiety about contamination and the desire for purity. The phobic reactions of our bodies should not cloud the judgment of our brains.

There are lots of things that seem yucky at first but can be justified upon further reflection. Organ transplantation provides an example. This was once viewed as creepy. But now nearly 80 people receive some kind of organ transplant in the U.S. every day.

There have been face, hand and even penis transplants. A Chinese doctor, Dr. Ren Xiaoping, wants to sever the head of a quadriplegic patient and attach it to a decapitated donor body.

The thought of a transplanted penis or head can make your stomach turn. But we can understand the value of using dead bodies to help the living. This seemingly gruesome surgery can help people live longer and better lives. And as long as the donors and recipients consent, it is none of our business.

Now some may claim that such transplants violate something essential about personal identity. Perhaps they even violate biblical principles. But any judgment here demands careful reflection. We need to make an argument instead of stating how we feel. And we need to realize that people will differ in their conclusions.

The same is true in discussions of homosexuality, politics or religion. Gut reactions are irrelevant. Moral judgment is complex. And people will differ – even with regard to what they find disgusting.

Now some view love as the antidote to hateful emotions. Love is an important emotion. But like all emotions, love is fickle. It quickly turns to loathing, as happens in crimes of passion, jealousy and revenge. Even love needs the guiding restraint of reason.

The real solution for hate, disgust and negative emotions is education. Familiarity diminishes revulsion. We learn that contamination is unlikely. We understand the justification of things. What was once repugnant soon becomes commonplace.

WE NEED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT INSTEAD OF STATING HOW WE FEEL.

Kids learn to eat yucky vegetables. Medical students learn to dissect dead bodies. Transplant surgeries become commonly accepted. And most Americans have gotten used to homosexuality.

We may disagree about these things. But our disagreements should be rational – not emotional. Disgust blinds us. It interferes with empathy, kindness and compassion.

Understanding defuses disgust. Reason restrains the passions. And wisdom dawns when we realize that violence, hate and disgust are immature responses to a complex world.

This is why a broad and inclusive education is the key to moral progress. The body adapts as the mind is opened and the head masters the heart.

Emotional reaction can cause us to think that violence, anger and hate are a solution to our problems. But these are the very problems we must solve. We solve these problems by feeling less and thinking more, by cultivating reason and by subduing our reactionary emotions.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article84453892.html#storylink=cpy

June 11, 2016

Political Correctness and Free Speech

We need to hear bad ideas so we can argue against them

Fresno Bee, June 11, 2016

Free speech is the best cure for bad ideas
Political correctness gets in way of genuine dialogue
Americans don’t like political correctness

People don’t like political correctness. A February poll by CBS’ “60 Minutes” found that 55 percent of Americans think that political correctness is a danger to free speech. Nearly 70 percent of Republicans don’t like political correctness.

Donald Trump has made this a theme. In a January speech Trump said, “We’re going to protect Christianity, and I can say that. I don’t have to be politically correct.” In a recent response to the backlash about his criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Trump said, “We have to stop being so politically correct in this country.”

Trump supporters agree. In a story about a Fresno kid who was not allowed to wear a Trump hat to school, Brooke Ashjian said, “If he wants to wear the hat, he should. If people are disturbed, too bad. There is so much political correctness people are afraid to rally.”

Democratic dialogue depends upon liberty, honesty and accountability. Without sincerity and freedom we end up with hypocrisy and duplicity. This is not good in a democracy.

Nor is it good for the pursuit of truth. Philosopher John Locke once said, “the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself.” Speech codes that limit the free exchange of ideas undermine the pursuit of knowledge.

When people say what they mean and mean what they say, we have a basis for judgment and evaluation. Without free and honest speech, we do not know what anyone really thinks. That’s a problem in democracy, in business, and in life.

Frank and forthright speech is revealing and occasionally disturbing. Consider what Trump’s unconstrained speech teaches us about him. He has admitted he is suspicious of Mexican-Americans and Muslims. It is better that we know this than if he kept those ideas to himself.

WE SHOULD HOPE THAT LIBERTY PROVIDES THE BEST CURE FOR STUPIDITY.

Free speech allows for education and progress. Consider the case of Leslie Rasmussen, who wrote a letter in support of a friend who was convicted of rape at Stanford. Rasmussen blamed her friend’s conviction on political correctness. She wrote, “Stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.”

To claim that rapists are not always rapists is a contradiction. The complaint about political correctness is a red herring. But that’s why we need free speech. If we don’t know what people think, we cannot evaluate their ideas – or criticize their logic. Nor can we change their minds.

Rasmussen’s remarks provoked a backlash. Her band was dropped from a number of concerts. Some may see this as an example of the stifling effect of political correctness. But it’s part of the free market of ideas. And the backlash allowed Rasmussen to clarify her position. She recently apologized for her remarks.

That’s an important lesson. Unconstrained speech can result in dumb things being said. No one is perfect. Sometimes our tongues outpace our brains. When we say something dumb we ought to correct it and apologize. Honesty and liberty require accountability.

WITHOUT SINCERITY AND FREEDOM WE END UP WITH HYPOCRISY AND DUPLICITY.

We learn and grow through free, sincere and accountable dialogue. When people say what they believe, we can evaluate them accordingly. We can even try to persuade them to think differently. But when discourse is constrained and people don’t say what they mean, we cannot have a productive dialogue.

In the best of all possible worlds there would be no hateful words. But in our flawed world, the next best thing is for bad ideas to come out of the closet. Political correctness can cause people to say the right thing for the wrong reasons, while remaining committed to dumb or indecent ideas.

Genuine civility remains an important good for social life. But genuine civility is not mere political correctness. Authentic civility is grounded in respect, compassion and commitment to the common good. Gandhi explained, “Civility does not mean mere outward gentleness of speech … but an inborn gentleness and desire to do the opponent good.”

Eloquent courtesy can mask cruelty and violence. Political correctness can be oppressive. And inhibited speech prevents genuine dialogue.

Americans have the right to say what we believe. We need to hear bad ideas, so we can argue against them. And we should hope that liberty provides the best cure for stupidity.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article82987487.html#storylink=cpy

June 4, 2016June 5, 2016

Democracy and Faith in Humanity

Without faith in humanity, cynicism grows and democracy becomes mob-rule

Fresno Bee, June 4, 2016

Faith in democracy is faith in morality and human freedom
American philosophers worry about cynicism
Irrationality, rudeness, vulgarity undermine democracy

We seem to have lost faith in our democracy. A recent Associated Press Poll indicates that 70 percent of Americans are “frustrated with the 2016 presidential election.” Only “10 percent say they have a great deal of confidence in the political system overall.”

Most Americans say that the country’s morality is getting worse. According to a recent Gallup Poll, nearly 75 percent of us think we are heading in the wrong moral direction. Almost half of Americans rate our morality as “poor.”

The San Jose Mercury News printed a tongue-in-cheek article about moving to Canada, for those who are not happy with this year’s election. If we are not careful, our cynicism will undermine our democracy. A healthy democracy depends upon trust. It requires faith in human decency and a commitment to the common good.

In 1939, as Europe was exploding, American philosopher John Dewey said that democracy rests upon “faith in the possibilities of human nature” and “faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action.”

Democratic faith is a central idea for John Dewey, one of America’s most important political philosophers. In 1939, as Europe was exploding, Dewey explained that democracy rests upon “faith in the possibilities of human nature” and “faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action.”

Without faith in humanity, cynicism grows and democracy becomes mob rule. Another great American philosopher, John Rawls, explained, “Distrust and resentment corrode the ties of civility, and suspicion and hostility tempt men to act in ways they would otherwise avoid.”

When we don’t trust each other, cooperation becomes impossible. Instead of working for the common good, we work to maximize our own self-interest. Instead of pursuing our hopes, we are motivated by our fears.

Faith in rationality is a key tenet of the democratic faith. Democratic citizens respect each other as rational beings. We give reasons and support them with rational arguments. We expect others to respond in kind. We express our disagreements with civility and restraint, believing that our civility will be reciprocated.

In a healthy democracy, we seek to understand each other. We aim to reach consensus. We listen as much as we talk. We avoid insulting and disrespecting each other. And we believe that each of us is committed to the common good in our own way.

Democratic societies fail when they are plagued by irrationality, rudeness, vulgarity, cruelty and violence. These social maladies cause further distrust and dysfunction, creating a vicious circle of cynicism.

Irrationality breeds mistrust. Instead of deliberating, we connive and cajole. Soon rudeness appears as a strategy and defense mechanism in a world of irrational manipulation. We yell rather than talk. We exchange insults instead of ideas.

The slippery slope of social dysfunction soon leads to vulgarity. In a manipulative power struggle, quick points are scored by playing dirty. Outrageous and obscene remarks soon become normal.

Once vulgarity is on the table, we are one step away from outright cruelty. Vulgar rudeness quickly morphs into nastiness and spite. Soon enough racist, sexist and bigoted comments appear on the scene.

WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO SOLVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS.

The step from verbal cruelty to outright violence is lubricated by the irrationality and obscenity that came before. Violent words quickly lead to violent deeds, when we have given up on reason and civility. And soon enough democracy becomes mob rule.

All of this was understood and predicted by Dewey in 1939 as a betrayal of the democratic faith. He explained, “Intolerance, abuse, calling of names because of differences of opinion about religion or politics or business, as well as because of differences of race, color, wealth or degree of culture are treason to the democratic way of life.”

Dewey’s solution is more and better education, aimed at creating civility and rationality. Education for and about democracy is needed to renew our faith in democracy.

Democratic education relies upon moral education. The basics of moral education have been understood since the time of Plato. Plato said we need four main virtues: moderation, courage, justice and wisdom. We certainly need more of each.

But beyond those basic moral virtues, democracy relies upon faith – in human freedom and in our capacity for self-governance. We have to believe that human beings are good enough to solve our own problems. The democratic faith is a commitment to make a world in which intelligent cooperation produces humane outcomes. Without that faith, we might as well move to Canada – or build a bunker and ride out the storm.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article81572897.html#storylink=cpy