Loading
What changed between revision 1 and revision 3, compared over the article's markdown source with its frontmatter — so a change to status, evidence or reversibility shows up as the edit it is.
Older · revision 1
Import· initial corpus import, not an edit
Initial import of content/right-to-die-and-right-to-live.md — the filesystem corpus, unchanged. Not an edit.
11.4 kB
Revision 1
Revision 3
lines 7–14 → 7–146 unchanged lines not shown
categories: ["society", "longevity"]categories: ["society", "longevity"]tags: ["bioethics", "law", "assisted dying", "autonomy", "aging", "mortality"]tags: ["bioethics", "law", "assisted dying", "autonomy", "aging", "mortality"]summary: "How the law and ethics of assisted dying interact with radical life extension, and whether an indefinitely extendable life could still be voluntarily ended."summary: "How the law and ethics of assisted dying interact with radical life extension, and whether an indefinitely extendable life could still be voluntarily ended."updated: "2026-07-27"updated: "2026-10-29"issues: ["The 1984 governor's duty-to-die remark is quoted without naming him or citing a source", "The early-1990s California cryonics case is described without naming it or citing the ruling"]issues: ["The 1984 governor's duty-to-die remark is quoted without naming him or citing a source"]------ ```infobox```infoboxlines 29–64 → 29–6414 unchanged lines not shown
## Two doctrines, separately built## Two doctrines, separately built Modern end-of-life law rests on a distinction that is stable in most jurisdictions and philosophically contested. A competent person may refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, and this right is close to absolute. Whether anyone may assist them to die actively is a separate question that most legal systems answer differently.Modern end-of-life law rests on a distinction that is legally stable in most jurisdictions but philosophically contested. A competent person may refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, and this right is close to absolute. Whether anyone may assist them to die actively is a separate question that most legal systems answer differently. The US Supreme Court set out both halves in the 1990s: a 1990 case established a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment, and two 1997 decisions held that there is no corresponding constitutional right to assistance in suicide, leaving the question to the states. Oregon's statute, in force from 1997, permits a physician to prescribe lethal medication to a terminally ill adult who self-administers it; roughly a dozen US jurisdictions now have comparable laws.The US Supreme Court set out both halves in the 1990s. A 1990 case established a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment, and two 1997 decisions held that there is no corresponding constitutional right to assistance in suicide, leaving the question to the states. Oregon's statute, in force from 1997, permits a physician to prescribe lethal medication to a terminally ill adult who self-administers it; roughly a dozen US jurisdictions now have comparable laws. The Netherlands and Belgium legalised physician-administered euthanasia in 2002 under conditions of unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement, which need not be terminal. Switzerland has permitted assisted suicide since long before the modern debate, through a penal-code provision that criminalises assistance only when the motive is selfish — an arrangement that made it the destination for cross-border cases. Canada's regime began with a 2015 constitutional ruling, was legislated in 2016 for those whose death was reasonably foreseeable, and was extended in 2021 to people with grievous and irremediable conditions who are not dying; eligibility on the basis of mental illness alone has been postponed repeatedly. The United Kingdom's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons in 2025 and was under consideration in the Lords; this is a fast-moving area and the position may have changed since.The Netherlands and Belgium legalised physician-administered euthanasia in 2002 under conditions of unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement, which need not be terminal. Switzerland has permitted assisted suicide since long before the modern debate, through a penal-code provision that criminalises assistance only when the motive is selfish. That arrangement made it the destination for cross-border cases. Canada's regime began with a 2015 constitutional ruling, was legislated in 2016 for those whose death was reasonably foreseeable, and was extended in 2021 to people with grievous and irremediable conditions who are not dying. People whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness remain excluded, and the exclusion has been extended twice by statute, most recently to March 2027.[^justice2024] The United Kingdom's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons in June 2025, then ran out of time in the House of Lords and fell when the parliamentary session ended, because private members' bills cannot carry over. A successor bill was introduced in the following session under a different sponsor.[^ifg2026] The area moves fast, and the position may have changed since. > [!note] What "right to die" usually means> [!note] What "right to die" usually means> In almost all existing law it means a right against interference — to refuse treatment, or to be assisted without the assistant being prosecuted. It is not a right to be provided with death on request, and no jurisdiction treats it as one.> In almost all existing law it means a right against interference: to refuse treatment, or to be assisted without the assistant being prosecuted. It is not a right to be provided with death on request, and no jurisdiction treats it as one. ## The suffering criterion and its instability## The suffering criterion and its instability Every permissive regime rests on a criterion: terminal illness, unbearable suffering, or a grievous and irremediable condition. Each has proved harder to hold than expected.Every permissive regime rests on a criterion: terminal illness, unbearable suffering, or a grievous and irremediable condition. Each has proved harder to hold steady than expected. Terminal illness requires a prognosis, and prognosis is unreliable at the margins. Unbearable suffering is subjective by construction, which is why the Dutch regime relies on physician assessment rather than an objective test. And any criterion defined by the absence of a remedy is unstable in a period of medical advance: a condition that is irremediable in 2026 may not be in 2036, which means the same person's eligibility changes without their condition changing.Terminal illness requires a prognosis, and prognosis is unreliable at the margins. Unbearable suffering is subjective by construction, which is why the Dutch regime relies on physician assessment rather than an objective test. Any criterion defined by the absence of a remedy is also unstable in a period of medical advance. A condition that is irremediable today may not be in a decade, so the same person's eligibility can change without any change in their condition. This is the first point of contact with longevity research. If the frailty and multimorbidity that drive many requests are treatable — the claim behind the [[geroscience-hypothesis]] — then a person requesting assistance because their body is failing is requesting it for a remediable condition. Whether that should affect eligibility is a question no jurisdiction has faced. It becomes acute only if interventions extend [[healthspan]] rather than lifespan alone; a therapy that adds years of dependency would strengthen the case for assisted dying rather than weaken it.This is the first point of contact with longevity research. If the frailty and multimorbidity that drive many requests are treatable, as the [[geroscience-hypothesis]] claims, then a person requesting assistance because their body is failing is requesting it for a remediable condition. Whether that should affect eligibility is a question no jurisdiction has faced. It becomes acute only if interventions extend [[healthspan]] rather than lifespan alone; a therapy that adds years of dependency would strengthen the case for assisted dying rather than weaken it. ## The duty-to-die worry## The duty-to-die worry Concerns that a permission would become an expectation predate the technology. A US state governor's 1984 remark that the terminally ill elderly have "a duty to die and get out of the way" prompted decades of argument, and the philosopher John Hardwig later defended a limited version — that a person may have obligations to family that bear on how long they seek to live.[^hardwig1997] Daniel Callahan had earlier argued for age-based limits on publicly funded life-extending care, on the ground that a health system cannot both pursue indefinite extension and meet other needs.[^callahan1987]Concerns that a permission would become an expectation predate the technology. A US state governor's 1984 remark that the terminally ill elderly have "a duty to die and get out of the way" prompted decades of argument, and the philosopher John Hardwig later defended a limited version: that a person may have obligations to family that bear on how long they seek to live.[^hardwig1997] Daniel Callahan had earlier argued for age-based limits on publicly funded life-extending care, on the ground that a health system cannot both pursue indefinite extension and meet other needs.[^callahan1987] The empirical worry is about pressure rather than duty. Disability-rights organisations and, in 2021, several UN human-rights experts raised concerns that Canada's extension to non-terminal conditions could make assisted death a response to inadequate housing, care, or disability support — that where the state funds death more reliably than it funds living, the choice is not free. Reported Canadian cases in which applicants cited unavailable services rather than intractable symptoms sharpened the objection. [[disability-rights-and-enhancement]] treats the broader argument about which lives medicine implicitly ranks.The empirical worry is about pressure rather than duty. Disability-rights organisations and, in 2021, several UN human-rights experts raised concerns that Canada's extension to non-terminal conditions could make assisted death a response to inadequate housing, care, or disability support. Where the state funds death more reliably than it funds living, they argued, the choice is not free. Reported Canadian cases in which applicants cited unavailable services rather than intractable symptoms sharpened the objection. [[disability-rights-and-enhancement]] treats the broader argument about which lives medicine implicitly ranks. ## The duty-to-live worry## The duty-to-live worry The symmetrical concern has had almost no attention, because the technology that would create it does not exist. It arises if life extension becomes routine.The mirror-image concern has had almost no attention, because the technology that would create it does not exist. It would arise if life extension became routine. Where continued life requires ongoing intervention — periodic [[senolytics]], repeated [[epigenetic-reprogramming]], or whatever a working geroprotective regimen turns out to be — declining that intervention becomes an act rather than an omission. The distinction between letting die and killing, which carries enormous legal weight, becomes hard to locate. Someone who stops taking a rejuvenation therapy at 130 has not refused an extraordinary measure in the sense the doctrine contemplates; they have declined the ordinary maintenance that everyone around them undertakes.Where continued life requires ongoing intervention, whether periodic [[senolytics]], repeated [[epigenetic-reprogramming]], or whatever a working geroprotective regimen turns out to be, declining that intervention becomes an act rather than an omission. The distinction between letting die and killing, which carries enormous legal weight, becomes hard to locate. Someone who stops taking a rejuvenation therapy at 130 has declined the ordinary maintenance that everyone around them undertakes, which is different from refusing an extraordinary measure in the sense the doctrine contemplates. Institutional pressures compound this. Pension systems, insurers, and employers all have financial interests in when people die, and those interests would run in the opposite direction from the ones that worry critics of assisted dying today. A society in which retirement is indefinitely deferred because working life is indefinitely extended, examined in [[longevity-dividend]], is one in which stopping is a decision with economic consequences for others.Institutional pressures add to the difficulty. Pension systems, insurers, and employers all have financial interests in when people die, and those interests would run in the opposite direction from the ones that worry critics of assisted dying today. A society in which retirement is indefinitely deferred because working life is indefinitely extended, examined in [[longevity-dividend]], would make stopping a decision with economic consequences for others. > [!debate] Is an indefinite life voluntary> [!debate] Is an indefinite life voluntary> Proponents argue that life extension adds an option and removes none: anyone may still decline. Critics reply that options with strong social defaults are not neutral, and that the pressure not to burden others, which currently pushes toward accepting death, would push toward accepting treatment with equal force and less scrutiny.> Proponents argue that life extension adds an option and removes none: anyone may still decline. Critics reply that options with strong social defaults are not neutral, and that the pressure not to burden others, which currently pushes toward accepting death, would push toward accepting treatment with equal force and less scrutiny.lines 67–83 → 67–832 unchanged lines not shown
The philosophical literature on this question is older than the biology. Bernard Williams argued from the Makropulos case that an unending life would eventually exhaust the categorical desires that give a person reason to go on, leaving tedium rather than fulfilment.[^williams1973] John Martin Fischer's reply is that repeatable pleasures do not exhaust, that a sufficiently long life allows new projects, and that Williams's argument assumes a fixed character which the immortal person need not have.[^fischer1994]The philosophical literature on this question is older than the biology. Bernard Williams argued from the Makropulos case that an unending life would eventually exhaust the categorical desires that give a person reason to go on, leaving tedium rather than fulfilment.[^williams1973] John Martin Fischer's reply is that repeatable pleasures do not exhaust, that a sufficiently long life allows new projects, and that Williams's argument assumes a fixed character which the immortal person need not have.[^fischer1994] Leon Kass makes a stronger claim: that mortality is not merely compatible with meaning but constitutive of it, because urgency, seriousness, and the structure of a life course depend on its finitude. It is the most substantive bioconservative argument and is treated in [[leon-kass]] and [[bioconservatism]]. Nick Bostrom's *Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant* is the standard reply, arguing that such reasoning is a rationalisation of an unavoidable evil that persists after the evil becomes avoidable.[^bostrom2005] Neither position is empirically testable, and the oldest people who have ever lived, discussed in [[maximum-human-lifespan]], have not lived long enough to bear on it.Leon Kass makes a stronger claim: that mortality is constitutive of meaning, beyond being compatible with it, because urgency, seriousness, and the structure of a life course depend on its finitude. It is the most substantive bioconservative argument and is treated in [[leon-kass]] and [[bioconservatism]]. Nick Bostrom's *Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant* is the standard reply, arguing that such reasoning is a rationalisation of an unavoidable evil that persists after the evil becomes avoidable.[^bostrom2005] Neither position is empirically testable, and the oldest people who have ever lived, discussed in [[maximum-human-lifespan]], have not lived long enough to bear on it. ## Cryonics and the timing of death## Cryonics and the timing of death [[cryonics]] creates a live legal version of the problem. Preservation quality depends on beginning quickly after circulation stops, and legal death is required before any procedure can begin — so the process starts at the worst possible moment for the outcome its subscribers want. A California case in the early 1990s tested this directly: a man with a terminal brain tumour sought a court order permitting cryopreservation before his brain deteriorated, and was refused. Organisations such as [[alcor]] therefore operate standby procedures designed to compress the interval, without ever crossing the line the law draws.[[cryonics]] creates a live legal version of the problem. Preservation quality depends on beginning quickly after circulation stops, and legal death is required before any procedure can begin, so the process starts at the worst possible moment for the outcome its subscribers want. A California case tested this directly. Thomas Donaldson, who had an inoperable brain tumour, sought a declaration that he had a constitutional right to cryogenic suspension before death and that those assisting him could not be prosecuted; the Court of Appeal refused in 1992, holding that the state's interest in preventing assisted suicide outweighed his claim and that refusing treatment and being helped to die are not the same act.[^donaldson1992] Organisations such as [[alcor]] therefore operate standby procedures designed to compress the interval, without ever crossing the line the law draws. Jurisdictions that permit assisted dying create a route that circumvents this, and a small number of cases have reportedly combined the two. It is the only context in which the right to die and the pursuit of indefinite life are not opposed but operationally connected, and neither the assisted-dying literature nor the [[brain-preservation]] literature has addressed what standards should apply.Jurisdictions that permit assisted dying create a route that circumvents this, and a small number of cases have reportedly combined the two. It is the only context in which the right to die and the pursuit of indefinite life are operationally connected rather than opposed, and neither the assisted-dying literature nor the [[brain-preservation]] literature has addressed what standards should apply. ## Open problems## Open problems No legal system has a category for a person who declines an available and effective life-extension therapy, and it is not obvious whether existing refusal-of-treatment doctrine would cover them or whether the case would be treated as suicide. Nor has any jurisdiction considered how eligibility criteria framed around irremediable conditions should be interpreted when the irremediability is a fact about current medicine rather than about the patient. Both questions are currently hypothetical. They stop being hypothetical the first time a geroprotective intervention works.No legal system has a category for a person who declines an available and effective life-extension therapy, and it is not obvious whether existing refusal-of-treatment doctrine would cover them or whether the case would be treated as suicide. Nor has any jurisdiction considered how eligibility criteria framed around irremediable conditions should be interpreted when the irremediability is a fact about current medicine rather than about the patient. Both questions are hypothetical for now, and would stop being so the first time a geroprotective intervention works. ## See also## See also lines 97–100 → 97–10313 unchanged lines not shown
[^williams1973]: `book` Williams, B. "The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality." In *Problems of the Self*, Cambridge University Press, 1973.[^williams1973]: `book` Williams, B. "The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality." In *Problems of the Self*, Cambridge University Press, 1973.[^fischer1994]: `paper` Fischer, J.M. "Why Immortality Is Not So Bad." *International Journal of Philosophical Studies*, 1994.[^fischer1994]: `paper` Fischer, J.M. "Why Immortality Is Not So Bad." *International Journal of Philosophical Studies*, 1994.[^bostrom2005]: `paper` Bostrom, N. "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant." *Journal of Medical Ethics*, 2005.[^bostrom2005]: `paper` Bostrom, N. "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant." *Journal of Medical Ethics*, 2005.[^justice2024]: `law` Department of Justice Canada. *Canada's medical assistance in dying (MAID) law.* Government of Canada, last modified July 2024. {The government's account of the statute rather than the statute itself; it records the two postponements and gives no indication of what happens at the March 2027 date.}[^ifg2026]: `report` McKee, R. "What has happened to the assisted dying bill?" Institute for Government, updated 19 June 2026. {A procedural explainer tracking the bill's stages and its failure to complete passage; it takes no position on assisted dying itself.}[^donaldson1992]: `law` *Donaldson v. Lungren*, 2 Cal. App. 4th 1614, California Court of Appeal, Second District, decided 29 January 1992. {The court decided the constitutional question only, and made no finding about whether cryopreservation preserves anything.} removed, struck through added, underlinedLine numbers count the serialised markdown of each revision, frontmatter included.
82 lines are the same in both revisions, and 35 of them are not shown. Neither revision here is necessarily the current article — read Right to die and the duty to live for the text this wiki stands behind today.