Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

License to Kill: A New Model for Excusing Medically Assisted Dying?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

Part of the book series: International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine ((LIME,volume 64))

  • 3916 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we seek to offer a fresh perspective on whether or not doctors should be “licensed to kill”. As that phrase indicates, we metaphorically refer to the adventures of fictional spy James Bond, although we hope, in doing so, that readers will not think that we are belittling the serious topic with which the chapter is concerned. Having surveyed some of the familiar arguments for and against allowing medically-assisted dying, we advance a new proposal, which seeks to strike a compromise between such arguments. Our exploratory model builds on an analogy with armed response police units as they operate in England, and specifically with situations in which such officers are found to have killed someone in the course of their duties. Rather than confer immunity prospectively (as proponents of assisted dying often seek) or deny immunity completely (as opponents insist), our policy would provide a potential retrospective excuse. 

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, e.g., Huxtable (2012) and Ives (2014) for an exposition of the theoretical basis of the need for, and value of, compromise in genuinely dilemmatic situations.

  2. 2.

    But see, e.g., Beauchamp and Davidson (1979), Wreen (1998), and Huxtable (2007).

  3. 3.

    E.g. the recent English ruling in R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) (2014).

  4. 4.

    House of Lords Select Committee (2005); Commission on Assisted Dying (2011).

  5. 5.

    For an overview of some of these laws, see Lewis and Black (2012).

  6. 6.

    Sometimes proponents will point to dignity as a basis for respecting individual choice, but critics suspect that these efforts are equally misconceived (Foster 2011).

  7. 7.

    For (critical) discussion of the disability rights perspective, see Ouellette (2006).

  8. 8.

    Campbell (2006).

  9. 9.

    However, this is not the position in Switzerland (see Lewis and Black 2012). There is also some scholarly support for less medicalised models, e.g., Ost (2010).

  10. 10.

    See similarly Burt (2005) on ambivalence.

  11. 11.

    Our primary sources for this section are: Association of Chief Police Officers, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and National Policing Improvement Agency (2011), Accessed 15th Aug 2014, 1001 GMT. and UK Police Firearms Officers Association (see PFOA. Post Shooting Procedures (2015), Accessed 14th Aug 2014, 10:57 GMT). We would also like to acknowledge and thank M, otherwise known as Martin Cooper, who gave us invaluable advice on this section. Any mistakes are, of course, our own.

  12. 12.

    Association of Chief Police Officers, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and National Policing Improvement Agency (2011), Accessed 15th Aug 2014, 1001 GMT. S2.43, p. 35.

  13. 13.

    The practice might also remain rare because, as Stevens’ (2006) research reveals, many doctors who have assisted in dying “are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences.”

  14. 14.

    We are grateful to Genevieve Liveley, whose golden eye spotted this potential slope.

  15. 15.

    Kevorkian is not the only ‘maverick’ of this kind; other examples include the Australian Dr. Philip Nitschke, and, in the UK, Michael Irwin, as well as Nicholas Reed and (self-appointed) “Dr” Lyons. In the 1980s, the latter pair had collaborated in a clandestine assistance-in-dying service, before they were discovered and convicted: see e.g. Huxtable (2007: 55–57, 78).

  16. 16.

    Harold Shipman was a UK family doctor who, in 2000, was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients. The subsequent judicial inquiry, examining nearly 500 of his patient’s deaths, found that he had killed 215 of his patients in total, the majority of whom were elderly women. See Smith (2002), 0917 GMT.

References

  • Anonymous. 1988. A piece of my mind. JAMA 259: 272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of Chief Police Officers, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and National Policing Improvement Agency. 2011. Manual of guidance on the management, command, and deployment of armed officers, third edition. http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/201111MCDofAO3.pdf.

  • Austin, J.L. 1956. A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, Tom L., and Arnold I. Davidson. 1979. The definition of euthanasia. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 4: 294–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyleveld, Deryck, and Roger Brownsword. 2001. Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, Hazel. 1998. ‘I don’t want to be a burden!’ A feminist reflects on women’s experiences of death and dying. In Feminist perspectives on health care law, ed. Sally Sheldon, and Michael Thomson, 279–295. London: Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, Margaret. 1996. Euthanasia and the law. British Medical Bulletin 52: 317–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, Robert A. 2005. The end of autonomy. Hastings Center Report, Special Report 35: s9–s13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Martin. dir. 2006. Casino Royale [film]. UK: EON Productions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Assisted Dying. 2011. The current legal status of assisted dying is inadequate and incoherent. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, Jurriaan. 2002. The ethics of euthanasia: Advocates’ perspectives. Bioethics 16: 154–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, Anne. 2001. Understanding autonomy relationally: Toward a reconfiguration of bioethical principles. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26: 365–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie, Jocelyn. 2000. The contested lessons of euthanasia in the Netherlands. Health Law Journal 8: 119–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyal, Len. 2006. Dignity in dying should include the legalisation of non-voluntary euthanasia. Clinical Ethics 1: 65–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald. 1993. Life’s dominion: An argument about abortion and euthanasia. London: Harper Collins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, Charles. 2011. Human dignity in bioethics and law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaylin, Willard, Leon R. Kass, Edmund D. Pellegrino, and Mark Siegler. 1998. Doctors must not kill. JAMA 259: 2139–2140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillett, Grant. 1988. Euthanasia, letting die and the pause. Journal of Medical Ethics 14: 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, Raanan. 2003. Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. Journal of Medical Ethics 29: 307–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagelin, Joakim, Tore Nilstun, Jann Hau, and Hans-Erik Carlsson. 2004. Surveys on attitudes towards legalisation of euthanasia: Importance of question phrasing. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 521–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, Robert. 1997. Medical futility and the social context. Journal of Medical Ethics 23: 148–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, John. 1997. Euthanasia and the value of life. In Euthanasia examined: Ethical, clinical and legal perspectives, ed. John Keown, 6–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, Sören. 2010. Euthanasia: Agreeing to disagree? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 13: 399–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable, Richard. 2007. Euthanasia, ethics and the law: From conflict to compromise. London: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable, Richard. 2012. Law, ethics and compromise at the limits of life: To treat or not to treat?. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable, Richard, and Maaike Möller. 2007. “Setting a principled boundary”? Euthanasia as a response to ‘life fatigue’. Bioethics 21: 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable Richard. and Mullock, Alexandra. 2015. ‘Voices of discontent? Conscience, compromise, and assisted dying’. Medical Law Review, 23: 242–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ives, Jonathan. 2014. A method of reflexive balancing in a pragmatic, interdisciplinary and reflexive bioethics. Bioethics 28: 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kass, Leonard R. 1975. Regarding the end of medicine and the pursuit of health. Public Interest 40: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keown, John. 2002. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: An argument against legalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhse, Helga. 1987. The sanctity-of-life doctrine in medicine: A critique. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Penney, and Isra Black. 2012. The effectiveness of legal safeguards in jurisdictions that allow assisted dying. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manninen, Bertha A. 2006. A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: Exploring the ethics of the Groningen protocol. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 643–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Franklin G., and Howard Brody. 1995. Professional integrity and physician-assisted death. Hastings Center Report 25: 8–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Momeyer, Richard. 1995. Does physician assisted suicide violate the integrity of medicine? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20: 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ost, Suzanne. 2010. The de-medicalisation of assisted dying: Is a less medicalised model the way forward? Medical Law Review 18: 497–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, Alicia. 2006. Disability and the end of life. Oregon Law Review 85: 123–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, Malcolm. 2005. End games: Euthanasia under interminable scrutiny. Bioethics 19: 523–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, Edmund D. 2001. The internal morality of clinical medicine: A paradigm for the ethics of the helping and healing professions. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26: 559–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, James. 1986. The end of life: Euthanasia and morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, James. 1993. Euthanasia, in T. Regan, ed. Matters of life and death: new introductory essays in moral philosophy, 30–68, New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, Peter. 2014. Support for UK assisted dying bill plummets to 43 % after hearing opposing arguments. http://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/support-for-uk-assisted-dying-bill-plummets-to-43-after-hearing-opposing-ar. Accessed 29 Apr 2015.

  • Siegel, Andrew M., Dominic A. Sisti, and Arthur L. Caplan. 2014. Pediatric euthanasia in Belgium: Disturbing developments. JAMA 311: 1963–1964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Peter. 1993. Practical ethics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Stephen W. 2005. Fallacies of the logical slippery slope in the debate on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Medical Law Review 13: 224–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Dame J. (2002). The shipman enquiry—first report: Death disguised. The National archives.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090808154959/http://www.the-shipman-inquiry.org.uk/home.asp . Accessed 15 Aug 2014.

  • Stevens Jr, Kenneth R. 2006. Emotional and psychological effects of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia on participating physicians. Issues in Law and Medicine 21: 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Police Firearms Officers Association (PFOA), n.d. Post-shooting procedures. 2015. https://www.pfoa.co.uk/211/post-shooting-procedures. Accessed 29 Apr 2015.

  • Varelius, Jukka. 2007. Illness, suffering and voluntary euthanasia. Bioethics 21: 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Willigenburg, Theo. 2000. Moral compromises, moral integrity and the indeterminacy of value rankings. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3: 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zyl, Liezl. 2000. Death and compassion: A virtue-based approach to euthanasia. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velleman, David J. 1992. Against the right to die. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17: 665–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Glanville. 1969. Euthanasia legislation: A rejoinder to the non-religious objections. In Euthanasia and the right to death: The case for voluntary euthanasia, ed. A.B. Downing, 134–147. London: Peter Owen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wreen, Michael. 1998. The definition of euthanasia. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48: 637–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Court Cases and Rulings

  • R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice; R (on the application of AM) v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] UKSC 38.

    Google Scholar 

Laws and Legislation

  • UK, House of Lords Select Committee (2005). Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL], Volume I – Report, HL Paper 86-I, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 125–127.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Richard Huxtable

  2. Medicine, Ethics, Society and History (MESH), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Jonathan Ives

Authors
  1. Richard Huxtable
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Ives
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Huxtable .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA

    Michael Cholbi

  2. Dept. of Behavioural Sciences and Philos, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Jukka Varelius

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Huxtable, R., Ives, J. (2015). License to Kill: A New Model for Excusing Medically Assisted Dying?. In: Cholbi, M., Varelius, J. (eds) New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 64. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22050-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation