Postscript to the 11-Part Series “Is Any Life Unworthy of Living?“

Mark P. Mostert, Ph.D.

As we have seen, the seeds of assisted suicide and euthanasia were sown decades ago. However, the pro-death movement can no longer hide behind altruism and good faith. It is a cultish behemoth that seeks to destroy what does — or should — matter most: the dignified preservation of life.

If we do not take this stand, we are simply saying that, indeed, many lives are not worthy of living. We cannot claim any moral high ground as a civilized society if we insist that a life that includes infirmity, disability, vulnerability or suffering is worse than death.

No life is unworthy of living, despite what the proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia say. Are some lives easier than others? Of course. Should we judge the quality of someone’s life and, based on that judgement, kill them? Of course not.

Some may argue that expensive medical and other care for vulnerable people necessitates rationing because there are never enough resources for everybody needing help. Thus, assisted suicide and euthanasia are seen as ways of conserving resources or allocating them for those who can improve. This is the classic “useless eaters” argument.

Instead, we should devote considerable time and energy to improving funding, building necessary resources and more energetically building out private sector care, such as increased support for hospice and related services. If this doesn’t happen, support for the pro-death argument increases because then people will judge, for others, their level of care based on how different they are and how much support and resources they need to live meaningful lives.

Others might assert that under certain circumstances death is preferable — for example, that people with advanced dementia or those in a persistent vegetative state should be euthanized. This automatically defines these people as so different from the rest of us that they shouldn’t live. This is the pro-death argument, because others get to judge another’s worth and then make the decision to kill them. Once this view becomes acceptable, killing people with other differences is sure to follow: people with genetic anomalies, people with severe medical disabilities, the elderly. Everyone becomes susceptible. Added to this mix is the reality of abuse and coercion.

In the end, unless things change, everyone ends up a potential case for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

We are all vulnerable to the pro-death movement unless we oppose it.

Mark P. Mostert, Ph.D., is senior researcher for Able Americans, a project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. This is the postscript of the 11-part series “Is Any Life Unworthy of Living?”