Nitschke's Comfortable Climate of Cuddling for Assisted Suicide

I am continuing my examination of Phillip Nitschke's presentation at a debate held August 25, 2001. In his presentation Nitschke cited the case of Bob Dent. Dr. Nitschke assisted Mr. Dent to commit suicide by providing a lap-top PC that controlled the administration of a lethal dose of drugs. Such suicide was legal at the time until the law was later overturned.

Comfortable Killing
Dr. Nitschke praised the fact that Bob Dent died while holding his wife in his arms. Nitschke is implying that because the killing took place in such a serene scene of husband and wife bonding over poison this was a good and proper act.

Critical Condition
According to reports Bob Dent was in pain with prostate cancer and was having difficultly controlling his bowel movements. He was dying from the cancer. This is a terrible condition from which to be suffering and not something I would hope to have to endure.

Confusing Red Herrings
The real question Phillips Nitschke ignores is whether it is morally and ethically right for someone to:

1. kill himself/herself
2. assist he/she in such an act.

The fact Mr. Dent bonded in love with his wife while he killed himself does not determine the right or wrongness of the act. It simply describes the setting where someone committed suicide and nothing else. This is Dr. Nitschke's attempt to deflect our consideration of the real issue and is called in logic a red herring. Later in his argument he charges that it is sophistry to say it is okay to give morphine to the terminally ill to alleviate pain because as a side effect it can also speed up dying.  Well, Dr. Nitschke, your clouding of the real issue with an image of a husband and wife bonding is the true example of Sophistry.

The Real Issue
The ethics of assisted suicide should be decided based on its moral rightness or wrongness. The supposed side benefit of producing a climate of comfort and bonding has no bearing on that decision.

Philip Nitschke: Suicide's Carnaval Barker

I have read a great deal written about Dr. Philip Nitschke and his crusade to legalize assisted suicide. To be fair to the man I listened to him during a recent debate in Australia about assisted suicide. I want to look at each of his arguments over several day, to determine their validity and the truth of his judgements.

Argument 1: Suicide Instruction and Drugs Should be Readily Available

Dr. Nitschke cites the statistic that in Australia in 2011 the most common way the elderly end their lives is by hanging. He cites that the victims used rope that is readily available in a hardware store. He concludes because rope is readily available therefore death inducing drugs and information about killing yourself should also be readily available.

Now, the purpose of rope differs greatly from purpose of drugs like Nembutal used to end a person's life. Ropes are packaged and sold as helpful item. You can use rope for many healthy and productive things. That is its primary purpose. Rope can also be misused for harmful things such as tying up someone abducted by criminals, or to hang someone. These later two uses of rope are misuses of the product and it purpose as a household item for security things. Nitschke is in effect arguing that current illegal misuse of a product (rope) means that another misuse of a product (Nembutal) is therefore justified. Ever hear your Mom say that two wrongs don't make a right? Apparently the good doctor never was privy to such wisdom.

Ropes are not packaged and marketed in hardware stores as suicide devices. Dr. Nitschke is saying that because there is illegal and unsanctioned misuse of a hardware item (rope) it justifies another illegal activity, namely for assisted suicide. If we apply this principle to other illegal and unsanctioned activities it would spell disaster. We could say look at the high rate of shootings in America. It is already happening, so guns and marksmanship classes should be readily available to the criminals shooting up houses.

He is in effect arguing that because the elderly illegally use rope to end their lives by hanging that it justifies the legalization of another wrong and illegal activity. (Readily making available suicide drugs and how to manuals.) You simply cannot take one wrong and illegal use of something and use it to justify legalizing another wrong and illegal act.

In the first place, Dr. Nitschke never makes presents any type of logical argument about why it is right for someone to kill themselves. He is arguing in a circle and assuming that the ability to commit suicide is a good thing. He simply cited some cases of people who were suffering and requested to end their lives. The patent's desire is all the justification he requires. But, are people's desires enough to justify legalizing their fulfillment? Should the rapist's desire to assault women be legalized because the rapist wants the freedom to do it?

Under all of his posturing the good doctor is driven by one mandate: provide people with the freedom to do what they want, period. Accommodating this freedom makes suicide a good act in his eyes.  Civilizations have always restricted certain freedoms as a way to ensure the well being of their citizens. If we put the argument into a syllogism it would look something like this:

Freedom is a good thing.
Legalized assisted suicide is freedom to kill yourself
Therefore, legalizing assisted suicide is a good thing.  

Unbridled freedom of the dark kind advocated by Phillip Nitschke is not a good thing, it is chaos,  anarchy, and the State sanction of murdering oneself. That does not meet my definition of a good situation. Dr. Nitschke needs to examine the rightness of his assumptions.