Psychology

Any discussion of intentionally and effectively killing a human being is complicated by the fact that such an act necessarily involves a number of different analytical perspectives with different underlying premises.  Regarding the instant debate, whether doctors should be empowered to aid in a terminally ill patients decision to pursue suicide, there are legal, medical, ethical, psychological, sociological, and interdisciplinary perspectives which make absolute conclusions difficult and perhaps impossible.  This is one of the main flaws with Somervilles arguments and logical premises.  She advocates, in effect, an absolute type of prohibition against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia pursuant to what she improperly and perhaps a bit disingenuously represents as an ethical perspective.  A close examination of her arguments actually suggests that she is in reality anchoring her conclusions on a continuation of traditional religious dogmas and a vaguely defined type of utilitarianism devoid of any substantial empirical evidence.  This is particularly evident in her references to experiences in the Netherlands, which she attempts to cite as a real-life experiment in which there have been negative social impacts, and she provides absolutely no empirical data.  Hulls argument is more persuasive because it transcends formulaic notions related to religious dogma and utilitarianism in favor of a more concentrated emphasis on human dignity at the moment when end-of-life realities must be confronted and addressed.  The better view would seem to be that state laws allowing for physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients ought to be encouraged and allowed so long as the physicians are not compelled to perform acts in violation of their personal moral values, that the intent of the law is to alleviate pain and humility in pursuit of human dignity, and that the patient is of sound mind and has explored all possible alternative courses of action in a comprehensive manner.

As an initial matter, Somerville paints too rigid a picture when she asserts such an approach will discredit the medical profession and lead to more unethical types of societies.  Hull anticipates this type of objection and argues that medical professionals ought to be specially certified in order to perform this type of medical end-of-life function.  This allows for personal ethical values to prevail whereas Somerville would attempt to impose a monolithic ethical value.  Physicians, in short, should be allowed to decide whether to pursue such specialized pain management training and their diversity of opinion would be respected in Hulls paradigm.  Somervilles framework, on the other hand, would treat physicians as criminals if they favored assisted suicide and this is hardly an ethical or a socially beneficial impact.  Hulls approach thus benefits the medical profession and their diverse values most effectively.  Terminally ill patients are also better served by Hulls approach because decision-making is placed in their hands rather than being imposed by religious values they do not share or by an abstract sort of utilitarianism to which they do not subscribe in a pluralistic society.  Somerville and Hull both seem to agree that feelings of hopelessness and depression, separate conditions, must be anticipated and considered.  This should necessitate a carefully designed and rigorously implemented program of education regarding alternative courses of medical treatment.  The decision to allow a physician-assisted suicide should never be taken lightly or with haste nevertheless, Somervilles statements to the effect that terminally ill patients will experience some sort of mystical reawakening is based on no empirical evidence and seems more akin to happy Hollywood endings than actual end-of-life suffering in the real world.

In the final analysis, this is unquestionably a complicated issue the best approach in a pluralistic society that ostensibly favors individual rights and human dignity would be one that respects individual decision-making.  Hulls approach accommodates such individual decision-making for both medical professionals, patients, and family members whereas Somerville seeks to impose compulsory restrictions that completely abrogate individual rights and taint notions related to human dignity.