Dinner Parties, euthanasia, and choice

In his essay “Against the Right to Die,” J. David Velleman argues that euthanasia can be harmful, not necessarily in itself, but that being presented with the option alone will inherently have a negative impact on people. He’s not arguing that one might be able to choose wrongly if the choice is being presented. The weight of his argument rests on the burdening an individual with a choice at all.

In the essay, Velleman presents an example involving a dinner party invitation. Being presented with an invitation forces a choice one way or the other—should the invitation be accepted or rejected? The decision is totally up to the recipient of the invitation: he or she can either turn it down and not dine with the host, essentially changing nothing about the status quo, or accept it and attend the party. Additionally, the recipient can make the choice that will be best, i.e. the one that will maximize utility. However, a choice must be made. If the recipient had never had the invitation extended in the first place, he or she would “default” to not dining with the host, just like any other night.

Velleman also presents the case of a cashier, which perhaps illustrates the harm that having options can incur more plainly than the example of the dinner invitation. In this example, Velleman argues that a cashier is better off not having the ability to unlock the safe in the store, because simply knowing how to open the safe makes her more vulnerable to being targeted by armed thieves. The point is, again, that it is possible that some people may be harmed simply by having an option presented to them.

Velleman applies this point to the case of euthanasia in the same fashion. He argues that being presented with the option of euthanasia can, in itself, incur harm. He forwardly acknowledges that there are cases when it may be in someone’s best interest to die, and to die via an act of euthanasia. However, the problem arises in the offering of the option in the first place.

Perhaps in a perfect world, euthanasia would only be offered to ∙those who would not be harmed by euthanasia and to ∙those who desire euthanasia. However, it is unavoidable that at least some people will be offered the choice of euthanasia, even though it is not in their best interest. Velleman believes that this circumstance should prompt us as a society not to widely offer the choice of euthanasia. Being presented with the option of euthanasia by itself strips the patient of the default position of staying alive.

What do you think of euthanasia? Is it wrong in itself? Should it be routinely offered as an option to terminally ill patients? Or is being presented with the option the problem, as Velleman suggests?