• DOI:10.1080/01947640701554468
• Corpus ID: 36871391

A Reply to Raymond Tallis on the Legalization of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

@article{Gorsuch2007ART,
  title={A Reply to Raymond Tallis on the Legalization of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia},
  author={Neil M. Gorsuch},
  journal={Journal of Legal Medicine},
  year={2007},
  volume={28},
  pages={327 - 332}
}

• N. Gorsuch
• Published 17 September 2007
• Psychology
• Journal of Legal Medicine

Raymond Tallis, formerly Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine, recently reviewed my book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, for The Times Literary Supplement. The review was thoughtful, and as generous as one might hope in view of Dr. Tallis’ advocacy for the legalization of assisted suicide and the skepticism I have expressed about that project. However, the review also offered a tantalizing glimpse at the assumed and sometimes unspoken premises that underlie the contemporary assisted suicide movement. Dr. Tallis expresses a deep conviction that: slippery slope problems can be avoided; legalization would bring a net benefit to society, outweighing any undesirable consequences; and the legalization of assisted suicide is necessary to address patient suffering. None of these views is unique to Dr. Tallis; they are shared by a great many people and hold a natural and intuitive appeal. But, can we be so confident that these assumptions, taken as virtual articles of faith by many, are well-founded? Consider first Dr. Tallis’ assertion, in response to slippery slope concerns, that society can draw an “objectively reasonable” line by legalizing voluntary assisted suicide only for mentally competent persons who are terminally ill and suffering intolerable pain. Such a line, Dr. Tallis asserts, is justified by our obligation to afford proper respect to the right to individual self-determination. But on such a principle, why would we honor fully autonomous decisions to