Velleman on Euthanasia

Does having the right to die become a duty to die? In the article, “Against the Right to Die,” by J. David Velleman, he addresses the problems that can result from the legalization of euthanasia. He believes that some people are morally entitled to be allowed or helped to die, but he argues against the establishment of an institutional right to die. He believes that making the choice of voluntary euthanasia available to the people can make them worse off even if they choose the option that is best for them. The ability to make a choice makes one worse off than going with the default option. Velleman argues that establishing such a right would burden those given the option of euthanasia, that to offer an option of dying gives new reasons to end one’s life. Because of this, he suggests the solution of a weak and vague euthanasia policy by design, left up to the individual health care professionals and the patient in question.

Velleman associates the legalization of euthanasia as having an option of death. He argues that exercising such an option may do more harm than good. He points out that we tend to think that simply having an unexercised option is not harmful, but having such an option can be harmful even if we do not exercise it. Two ways in which options may cause harms is that, options can subject one to various kinds of pressures, and the offer of an option can be undesirable because of what it expresses. Velleman uses the example of the night cashier, who is given the power to open the safe, to show that options can subject one to pressures. It’s not that the cashier doesn't directly want the power, but rather, it would make him a target for robbers. Even though opening the safe while at gun point would be the right thing to do, he’d be wishing he’d never been given the option of doing it in the first place. This makes him worse off because he can no longer have the default option, not being forced to open the safe at gun point, without choosing it....