Claude Thau vs. Prager on Medical Aid in Dying

 My email to Prager University:

PragerU prides itself on its values, which include individual rights, clear presentation and truth.  As someone who respects PragerU, I find that its video (Why Is Assisted Suicide on the Rise? | PragerU) embarrassingly fails PragerU’s standards. 

I’ll stick to MAID in the USA to have consistent laws to discuss, thereby making arguments clearer. 

Prager stands for limited government interference in your life.  If the government said “You grew up in Pennsylvania, so you can’t move to Florida”, Prager would be (rightfully) upset.  But if I have less than six months to live, am in great pain, and want to release my soul to move to heaven a few weeks early and to die in peace with my support system around me, Prager thinks the government should step in and forbid that right to me.

PragerU describes MAID as “government-assisted death” but MAID laws specifically exclude the government from the decision.  PragerU opposes MAID laws, wanting the government to step in to forbid MAID.

PragerU asks people if they would “push” someone off a bridge to help them commit suicide and asks if they wouldn’t do it, is it right for the government to push them.  In addition to its continual misstatement regarding government involvement, Prager adds the hugely misleading concept of someone being “pushed” to engage MAID.  PragerU “conveniently” failed to mention that:

1. Two independent physicians must have independently concluded that the person has less than six months to live and must attest that no one is exerting undue interest.
2. There is a 15-day waiting period.
3. Two witnesses and the person exercising MAID must attest that no one is exerting undue interest.
4. A physicians must discuss all alternatives with the person.  Indeed, studies have shown that the MAID process results in more usage of hospice, palliative care and pain management, very different from the person on the bridge..

If the government is pushing people to opt for MAID, you’d expect the usage of MAID to be higher among those who are poor, have less advanced education, racial and ethnic minorities, etc.  However, usage of MAID is lower for those populations.

In fairness, PragerU’s question mentions that the lady on the bridge has terminal cancer, but envisioning people jumping from bridges brings to mind someone forfeiting many years of life (with MAID, they are estimated to give up 3.3 weeks of life (two physicians have independently determined that the person is expected to die within six months and people take a long time to make the MAID decision, often not doing it.) 

Indeed, the availability of MAID can reduce suicides.  My mother committed suicide while healthy because she feared that she would lose her health and lose control of her life.  I could provide more detail about how and why that fear was so strong in a person of mental and physical health.  If she had lived in a state with MAID laws, she absolutely would not have committed suicide per her conversation with me.  She likely lost many good years of life (she was 76) because her government wouldn’t give her the right to later end her life a little early on her own volition.

When contemplating people who jump off a bridge, people think of someone who doesn’t like his/her life.  Au contraire, people who opt for MAID love their life, but they are already in the death process.  Their life has been taken from them.  In a sense, MAID is preserving the body as it was, before it disintegrates.  Unlike people jumping from a bridge, there is no chance of turning their life around.

The person on the bridge is alone.  With MAID, people die with their loved one and support system around them.  This is a huge difference which PragerU chose not to disclose.

The person on a bridge is in a strange environment and about to plunge in a cold river which will result in their body being disfigured and taken their body God-knows-where.  The person exercising MAID dies in comfort, body intact, at home with loved ones fully cognizant and prepared to take next steps.  PragerU also chose to bury this distinction.

Family members deal with MAID much more easily because they are privy to their loved ones intent and can be present if they wish.  It is significant that we do not receive complaints from family about the MAID process.

Some people say we should not interfere with God’s will (Prager U did not make that argument), but in end-of-life, some people want to force us to interfere with God’s will by taking extreme means to stay alive.

PragerU says “it starts with just cancer patients, then its people with chronic fatigue, then its people with mental illness”.  In fact, chronic fatigue and mental illness are specifically excluded.  Separate laws would have to be proposed and debated to extend the eligible situations.

PragerU, in a tactic that is characteristic of debaters who can’t win a clear argument, shifts from country-to- country in its arguments.  Referring to Netherlands, the speaker says that every year the number exercising MAID goes up, while the small print table actually shows that the statement is false.  Prager avoids discussion of why the trendline rises.

PragerU cites a case in Canada in which a vet couldn’t get wheelchair ramp for 5 years and a government employee noted that she had the option of MAID.  Hmmm…  why does PragerU have to go to Canada to find such a story.  Clearly, PragerU could not find a scandalous story in the USA because if it could, it would have used the USA story.   Hmmm… why does PragerU not report that the Canadian prime minister called the situation "absolutely unacceptable" and that the veterans service agent had been suspended and the matter referred to the police (per https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-gauthier-assisted-death-macaulay-1.6671721).

PragerU asks what MAID tells us about our society’s view of the value of human life.  I would say that it recognizes the value of human will and that we each have our right to view and protect our life as we see fit.  If we are not allowed to end our life under the circumstances of MAID, should we be permitted to take risks to help others if those risks could terminate our lives?   PragerU talks about slippery slopes, but vigorously promotes a slippery slope of government interference in our rights.