So, the NYT editorial page comes down on the Confucian side of the debate: that people should have the option of doctor-assisted suicide when they face terminal illness.
The Times argument - which supports the position of the state of Oregon in defending their locally-enacted assisted suicide law in a Supreme Court cast today - is, of course, grounded in Western liberalism, or, at least, a version of it. They are asserting an individual right to die (even though some years ago the Supreme Court rejected an explicit attempt to enumerate precisely that sort of right for the nation as a whole).
A Confucian perspective would recognize an individual's role in making such a decision, but it would also encourage a broader consideration of an individual's social context. Individuals, for Confucius, are not as autonomous as the law or the culture might suggest. We are all embedded in, and defined by, the web of loving relationships that surrounds us. So, our death is not wholly our own, but is also a part of those closest to us. And those people, often immediate family but perhaps also friends, should, from a Confucian point of view, participate in any decision about ending a life.
In practice, an individual should have the final say about suicide. But it would not be too hard to build into the process a period of reflection and consultation with all relevant close relations to make sure the decision is socially complete. Perhaps a person with a terminal illness does not realize the place he or she occupies in the lives of others. It would be relatively easy to create this social process (appropriate Confucianly [can that be an adverb?] because we are irreducibly social beings) in the case of state-sanctioned doctor-assisted suicide.
So, a modern-day Confucian could agree that a person can end his or her life, and a doctor can ethically participate in that ending, if and only if that decision is the product of careful and searching deliberation among all relevant close relations. A person could not take such a decision in isolation. And, if there were strong reservations by some family members, then, perhaps, there should be some waiting period in deference to that objection.
A Taoist - a philosophic Taoist of the Chuang Tzu variety, at least - would likely take the opposite view. Why intervene? If death is coming, as it is, ultimately, for all of us, why hurry the process along, or slow it down? Better to just sit back, marvel at the transformations of Way, and, maybe, have a glass of wine (i.e. palliative care would be acceptable from a Taoist view point, but not active suicide.). This is what Chuang Tzu might say, if he found himself standing in the Supreme Court alongside the US opponents of a right to die (talk about odd bedfellows!):
This mighty Mudball of world burdens us with a body, troubles us with life, eases us with old age, and with death gives us rest. We call our life a blessing, so our death must be a blessing too. (86).
It is a blessing, but not something that we can strive for or seize on our own initiative. It comes to us in its own time. Don't rush it, or you might miss something important about Way.
But, somehow, I can't quite see the Bush administration (which is against the Oregon assisted suicide statue) making the case in quite those terms...
Comments