rog
28 Mar 2011, 05:02 PM
By Alexandre Erler
Oregon is currently the scene of a controversy about the sale of so-called “suicide kits” or “helium hoods” (see here and here). These kits are sold by mail by a two-person company called The Gladd Group; one of its owners is reported to be a 91-year-old San Diego County woman who has been selling the kits for four years. The device is now receiving increased media attention following the suicide, with the help of the helium hood kit, of 29-year old Nick Klonoski, who had health-related issues that had brought him into depression, but was not terminally ill. His tragic death has now sparked a movement to outlaw the sale of those kits in Oregon. However, the woman selling the kits protests that she is providing a valuable service, and is quoted as saying that “[i]t is not my intention to hurt anybody, but to offer people comfort when they die”. Is the sale of those suicide kits a legitimate form of business, or should it be banned?
One thing I find disappointing about the media coverage of this issue is that the only people who are mentioned as advocating a ban on those suicide kits are opponents of assisted suicide more generally. One thus gets the impression that if you are in favour of assisted suicide, you should also be in favour of such kits being freely available for sale. After all, shouldn’t people be allowed to freely decide precisely when and how they wish to die?
I have defended assisted suicide in a previous entry on this blog, yet I believe that the sale of those suicide kits is a highly irresponsible practice and that there are good grounds for outlawing it. The problem with the sale of those kits is not that it represents a form of assisted suicide, but rather that it lacks appropriate controls. It means that the lives of vulnerable people, people who might need psychological support or other forms of help than help with dying, are being put at risk. Assisted suicide should be legal and provided not only to terminally ill people, but to every person who has expressed a clear desire to die over a sufficiently long period, who has had access to all relevant avenues of help, and whose quality of life is clearly compromised and cannot reasonably be expected to improve in the future. But that does not mean condoning the provision of assisted suicide for just anyone who requests it, including vulnerable young people going through a temporary bout of depression. Klonoski did suffer from an illness that defied medical diagnosis and diminished his quality of life, but it is not clear that he had received appropriate help to get over his depression (triggered by an onset of flu) and his associated desire to die. However that may be, the appropriate stance towards the sale of those suicide kits does not fundamentally depend on what the correct verdict is in Klonoski’s case. Whether or not he should have been helped to die, it seems quite clear that these kits are not being sold with appropriate safeguards.
Derek Humphry, the author of a best-selling book on assisted suicide and promoter of the helium hood kit, apparently doesn’t think it inappropriate for people in Klonoski’s situation to have free access to the kit, with accompanying instructions on how to use it. It is not clear, however, how we are to reconcile this with his professed wish that assisted suicide be made available to everyone who seeks it, “except the mentally disturbed, including the depressed”.
One cannot but regret that the debate on this issue should once more be characterized by a lack of nuance and involve a clash of equally implausible extreme views. Oregon, like many other American states and most countries in the world, should improve its legislation on assisted suicide, currently overly restrictive. In the meantime, it should ban the sale of suicide kits – popular singers from Marilyn Manson to Lady Gaga have been accused of romanticizing suicide, but such an unregulated aid to dying strikes me as much more dangerous.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/03/suicide-for-sale-in-oregon-a-%E2%80%9Cvaluable-service%E2%80%9D/#more-1314
The links from news:
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=14326023
http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/25946621-41/suicide-helium-humphry-kit-klonoski.html.csp
Oregon is currently the scene of a controversy about the sale of so-called “suicide kits” or “helium hoods” (see here and here). These kits are sold by mail by a two-person company called The Gladd Group; one of its owners is reported to be a 91-year-old San Diego County woman who has been selling the kits for four years. The device is now receiving increased media attention following the suicide, with the help of the helium hood kit, of 29-year old Nick Klonoski, who had health-related issues that had brought him into depression, but was not terminally ill. His tragic death has now sparked a movement to outlaw the sale of those kits in Oregon. However, the woman selling the kits protests that she is providing a valuable service, and is quoted as saying that “[i]t is not my intention to hurt anybody, but to offer people comfort when they die”. Is the sale of those suicide kits a legitimate form of business, or should it be banned?
One thing I find disappointing about the media coverage of this issue is that the only people who are mentioned as advocating a ban on those suicide kits are opponents of assisted suicide more generally. One thus gets the impression that if you are in favour of assisted suicide, you should also be in favour of such kits being freely available for sale. After all, shouldn’t people be allowed to freely decide precisely when and how they wish to die?
I have defended assisted suicide in a previous entry on this blog, yet I believe that the sale of those suicide kits is a highly irresponsible practice and that there are good grounds for outlawing it. The problem with the sale of those kits is not that it represents a form of assisted suicide, but rather that it lacks appropriate controls. It means that the lives of vulnerable people, people who might need psychological support or other forms of help than help with dying, are being put at risk. Assisted suicide should be legal and provided not only to terminally ill people, but to every person who has expressed a clear desire to die over a sufficiently long period, who has had access to all relevant avenues of help, and whose quality of life is clearly compromised and cannot reasonably be expected to improve in the future. But that does not mean condoning the provision of assisted suicide for just anyone who requests it, including vulnerable young people going through a temporary bout of depression. Klonoski did suffer from an illness that defied medical diagnosis and diminished his quality of life, but it is not clear that he had received appropriate help to get over his depression (triggered by an onset of flu) and his associated desire to die. However that may be, the appropriate stance towards the sale of those suicide kits does not fundamentally depend on what the correct verdict is in Klonoski’s case. Whether or not he should have been helped to die, it seems quite clear that these kits are not being sold with appropriate safeguards.
Derek Humphry, the author of a best-selling book on assisted suicide and promoter of the helium hood kit, apparently doesn’t think it inappropriate for people in Klonoski’s situation to have free access to the kit, with accompanying instructions on how to use it. It is not clear, however, how we are to reconcile this with his professed wish that assisted suicide be made available to everyone who seeks it, “except the mentally disturbed, including the depressed”.
One cannot but regret that the debate on this issue should once more be characterized by a lack of nuance and involve a clash of equally implausible extreme views. Oregon, like many other American states and most countries in the world, should improve its legislation on assisted suicide, currently overly restrictive. In the meantime, it should ban the sale of suicide kits – popular singers from Marilyn Manson to Lady Gaga have been accused of romanticizing suicide, but such an unregulated aid to dying strikes me as much more dangerous.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/03/suicide-for-sale-in-oregon-a-%E2%80%9Cvaluable-service%E2%80%9D/#more-1314
The links from news:
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=14326023
http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/25946621-41/suicide-helium-humphry-kit-klonoski.html.csp