BROADCASTS.com

Summary of today\u2019s show: Carter Snead, a law professor at University of Notre Dame, joins Scot Landry to talk about the moral principles embodied in the passage of laws and why the arguments put forth by the proponents of Question Two to legalize physician-assisted suicide would provide no barrier to even more extreme forms of euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, and would place the most vulnerable groups among us at risk.\nListen to the show:\n\nWatch the show via live video streaming or a recording later: \nToday\u2019s host(s): Scot Landry\nToday\u2019s guest(s): Carter Snead, Caroline Cassidy, Bridget Rose\nLinks from today\u2019s show:\n\n\n\n\n\n\nToday\u2019s topics:\n1st segment: Today\u2019s show is coming live from Montrose School in Medfield, Mass. The school is hosting sessions on assisted suicide for the young women at the school by Carter Snead, a professor at University of Notre Dame. Scot said we\u2019re talking about assisted suicide still because polls show 50% of Mass. voters still don\u2019t know about this issue.\nScot said the Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide is starting to air a new radio ad on Massachusetts radio stations. They aired the new ad. It talks about the six-month prognosis, the ingestion of 100 capsules is not in a medical setting and without any supervision, that the doctor doesn\u2019t have to be present, and that family doesn\u2019t have to be notified. The close of this is that proponents say it\u2019s all about control, but because of lack of effective safeguards, this is a law that is out of control.\nScot said television advertising will start soon, probably later this week.\nCarter Snead is director of the Center for Ethics and Culture and a professor of law. He specializes in the relationship between bioethics and the law. Scot said Carter has also spoken at St. Sebastian School and will speak tomorrow at the Boston Leadership Forum breakfast at 7:30am at the Union Club. He will speak tonight at the Montrose School at 7pm.\nScot noted that Carter isn\u2019t from Massachusetts but he wanted to help us on this issue. He said the stakes don\u2019t get higher than assisted suicide and those outside of Massachusetts who care about the well-being of the most vulnerable populations want to help. We have seen in other places how these types of laws put them at risk. He noted that New York state took up this issue and agreed that the state shouldn\u2019t legalize it, even though some agreed with the concept, because it placed the vulnerable at too much risk.\nScot said many folks don\u2019t know that this sort of legislation has come up in 25 states and in all but two states it\u2019s been turned away. Carter said overwhelmingly in the US is that assisted suicide is frowned upon, criminalized, disavowed by the medical profession. There is an active and well-funded movement to legalize assisted suicide and then later euthanasia. Even those who are not Catholic or committed to the same Catholic moral principles can agree that the framework of this proposal is very bad. There is little evidence from Oregon\u2019s legalization because there is no real reporting. In the Netherlands, what started as assisted suicide has led to voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.\nScot asked if that progression is something likely to happen here if it passes in Massachusetts and whether the extra autonomy is worth that price. Proponents know euthanasia wouldn\u2019t pass on its own. Carter agreed that it\u2019s an incremental strategy to go from assisted suicide for a limited population to eventually involuntary euthanasia. That\u2019s because that there\u2019s no meaningful principle to say yes to assisted suicide and no to involuntary euthanasia.\nScot said the primary argument from proponents is that dignity involved me having the right at the end of my life to control when I die. People have a right to self-determination in matters of their existence. Scot said we have to respond that suicide affects all of us. Carter said \u201cdignity\u201d in this context means autonomy. He said dignity is a kind of intrinsic, inalienable value recognized in every human being. They\u2019re using dignity to refer only to their individual lives. As Americans we care about liberty.\nThe argument for autonomy shows it doesn\u2019t do what it\u2019s proponents say it does. We don\u2019t live as disembodied wills. We live situated in families and communities with chosen and unchosen relationships. We\u2019re all interconnected and there is a principle of solidarity when it comes to our actions. Suicide impacts survivors and the community they live in. Scot said it particularly affects the people who say they wish they would have known in order to help. Carter said the Question doesn\u2019t required any kind of mental health evaluation when we know that the vast majority of people who think of suicide are mentally ill.\nPeople are going to make this decision without autonomy. Suicidal desires are often alleviated with effective pain management. Given any real choice, suicide is a phony autonomy.\nScot said anybody who\u2019s lost someone they care about knows the impact affects everyone you know. He added that what\u2019s even worse is that they will assist someone in taking their own life without informing family members.\nIf we say it\u2019s all about autonomy, then a lot of other things can appeal to the same autonomy argument. Carter said if we allow this as autonomy, how can we criminalize voluntary euthanasia? How can we stop suicide pacts? How can we limit this only to people who are terminally ill? How can we claim emotional suffering isn\u2019t worse than physical suffering? How can we say cold, rational judgment isn\u2019t better than the judgment of someone who is pain and near death? In the Netherlands right now, they are considering a proposal to allow non-terminal suicide for people who have decided they are done with life.\n2nd segment: Scot said the second big argument by the proponents is \u201cWho am I to impose my values on others\u201d and citing separation of church and state. Carter said the response to the idea that the state has to be morally neutral misunderstands what the law is. Law is the imposition of values by definition. Law decides what is legal and illegal. It does impose on people. Every law is grounded in some normative framework and oriented toward a particular good to be pursued or some harm to be avoided. Even the speed limit balances many goods and many harms and evaluating the fit of the means of the law and the final end.\nThe notion that the basic good of human life and state\u2019s obligation to protect it\u2014a fundamental reason for government\u2014is unsurprising. And if we say that religious traditions\u2019 value of human life is a violation of separation of church and state, then we have to undo all our homicide laws and more.\nIf something is legalized, what other risks come along with that? Can they be regulated in a way that doesn\u2019t endanger other people? Assisted suicide doesn\u2019t work within that framework. If I\u2019m a statesman I see there\u2019s no breaks within this system. All of the aforementioned problems cited\u2014including lack of legal definition of ingestion\u2014lead to the inevitable lack of protection for the vulnerable.\nScot said Carter said earlier today that sometimes the law shapes our values, instead of vice versa. Cardinal Sean has said that if the law sanctions suicide for one group of people, then how can the state\u2019s efforts to minimize suicide across all age demographics, particularly the young, fail to shape some people to think that suicide is the solution for their suffering.\nCarter said law does shape people\u2019s behavior. The government endorsement or tolerance has deep symbolic significance for citizens. There are a whole array of examples from the Netherlands to illustrate this point. It\u2019s impossible to hold the line when the government says it\u2019s okay to kill yourself for whatever reason. The costs are just too grave to allow such a law. How many cases of involuntary euthanasia are worth the autonomous suicide of a few?\nScot said in the Netherlands some people who are very sick and near the end of life fear going to the doctor because they\u2019re afraid of being euthanized. So they\u2019re not getting the healthcare they need. Why would we make that possible here? Carter asked how the proponents could oppose what\u2019s happening in the Netherlands within the framework of their own arguments? There\u2019s no grounds for refusing those conditions.\nThink about health insurance. There are cases from Oregon of people receiving notification from the insurance carriers telling them that the companies will pay for the assisted suicide and not for expensive treatments. How many instances of coercion that lead to a person\u2019s death is too many to justify this system of assisted suicide?\nScot quoted Carter as saying that in principle societies make laws against self-annihilation. Carter said suicide has always been a crime in the law historically and was eventually de-criminalized. At the same, assisted suicide\u2019s criminalization was expanded. And the law allows someone considering suicide to be detained. Assisted suicide is condemned in the law in all states but three: Oregon, Washington, and Montana. The Montana Supreme Court declared it is not illegal, but no legal either. What\u2019s proposed here is quite radical.\nA systemwide availability of facilitated killing promotes an inegalitarian ethos against those living in diminished states. The state also has an interest in preserving the medical profession\u2019s integrity and legitimacy.\n3rd segment: Scot welcomed two seniors at Montrose School, Bridget Rose and Caroline Cassidy. Bridget is president of the pro-life club at the school. Scot asked her for her reactions to what Carter talked about today.\nBridget said many high school students don\u2019t know what this question is about. They will talk about autonomy, dignity and the arguments against assisted suicide. They\u2019re energized to inform others.\nScot asked Caroline what she heard today that would shock her. She said she was taken aback by the possibilities. Quality of life replaces life itself as an argument.\nCaroline is voting for the first time in November. Scot asked her about voting on an issue that is literally about life and death. She said it\u2019s an amazing responsibility as a young person with strong beliefs. We have a responsibility to take up the value of our lives.\nScot cited the arguments that values should not be imposed on others. He asked Bridget how she would respond to that. She said they discussed in her classes why can\u2019t one person decide for themselves. She said they\u2019ve now learned that it affects everyone and as members of communities our decisions and actions affect everyone.\nScot asked Caroline what she thinks about the possibility that assisted suicide will make young people think suicide is more viable. She said there have been more stories lately in the news about kids contemplating suicide in their difficult lives.\nScot noted that disability groups particularly are opposed to this question because of the pressures they fear will be brought against them.\nScot said a lot of the advertising on this issue will be focused on older voters, but young people put a lot of weight in the tolerance and autonomy arguments. Carter said there\u2019s superficial appeal to the idea, but students are smart enough that when they think about the interconnectedness of all people and the implications of these arguments, then it doesn\u2019t carry the weight that proponents hope it does.\nThe people most at risk through a system of legalized suicide are the weakest, the poorest, the marginalized.\nCarter said he hopes the voters will consider the consequences for all those who will be threatened in dramatic ways, as shown in the Netherlands. He said he was encouraged and buoyed by what he saw in the young men and women at St. Sebastian\u2019s and Montrose School and how they are being formed.