End of Life Choice: A Clash of Irreconcilable Ideologies
On the 17th of October New Zealanders will vote not only in the general election, but also in two subtly similar referendums. The first of these concerns the regulation of cannabis, whilst the second addresses the End of Life Choice Act. Both are concerned with issues of personal freedom. At the heart of the yes/no divide is an ideological chasm around the rights that individuals should hold within a society.
First, it is important to establish what the End of Life Choice referendum is and what it is not. Unlike the cannabis referendum, a yes vote on the End of Life Choice question is binding, meaning that this specific Act will become law. No further public input will be sought, no caveats can be added to the legislation, no more research will be considered. In many ways this is a good thing; before you vote you can actually read the piece of law that has already be approved by parliament and will be enacted in twelve months time if a majority is achieved in the referendum. This does however mean that this is not simply a conversation about whether or not euthanasia should be legal, but is a specific question about whether the proposed law is appropriate for our society.
There are already many articles and websites dedicated to discussions of the intricacies of the proposed legislation. I am not a lawyer nor a doctor and it is well outside of my expertise to discuss the ins and outs and concerns that people have with the law. I do recommend you have a read of both sides though if the detailed implications are of interest: Both; No; Yes.
Having read and heard a number of peoples’ opinions, I have been struck by a consistent fracture in the dialogue. The two different sides of the debate are not often able to understand each other as they are arguing from irreconcilably different viewpoints. The “yes” camp believes strongly in the rights of the individual—“it’s my life so it’s my choice”—while the “no” camp argues from an inherent concern about the collective good of society.
The last half-century has seen a profound increase in discourse concerning the issue of individualism in western society. The postmodern self is one marked by subjectivity—the belief in personal truth—and a drive for authenticity—the need for the individual to be able to enact this truth. These priorities are not necessarily positive or negative. The prioritisation of individual authenticity leads to a society where others’ ideas are valued and their rights to these beliefs are affirmed. This form of individualism is central to the civil rights actions of last century that relied on an acknowledgement of the inherent dignity and humanity of all peoples. Individual experiences were granted value in a way that allowed societal structures to be rewritten to cater for greater equality and personal freedoms. Within politics, the ability to speak freely and hold dissenting viewpoints is deeply reliant on the growth of a postmodern subjectivity.
However, a dangerous consequence occurs when this form of relativism leads to the view that personal beliefs cannot be challenged; where the rights of the individual are held so highly that the consequences of these rights on others is not sufficiently considered. Many of us are probably sufficiently able to identify the first of these two issues. I’m sure that we’ve all participated or witnessed a conversation where one or both parties hold staunchly to an opinion, regardless of evidence, because they have a right to hold it. What commentators have called an “infodemic” associated with COVID-19 is a major symptom of this problem. The boundary between fact and opinion has become increasingly blurred as a function of our increased desire to allow the relativism that individualism requires.
Both sides of the End of Life Choice debate have been victims and perpetrators of this misinformation. Debates of the issues surrounding the proposed legislation have been fraught with “fact-inions” - my Dad’s word for opinions that are shared as if they hold the weight of facts. Sadly, this has led to a scarcity of legitimate engagement between the two sides. We’re comfortable to agree-to-disagree so as not to cause upset or devalue the opinion that we believe someone to be intrinsically allowed to hold. In many cases this compromise may be the right result, but when the opportunity put before us is the discussion of a law that will be enacted we need to try our best to have the best, and most fact-filled, conversations possible. There are genuine consequences that impact people’s lives depending on whether there is a yes or no decision. There’s more at stake than simply hoping to not offend someone who you may disagree with.
Perhaps the more major contribution of individualism on the End of Life Choice Act referendum is the role that it plays in the yes/no debate. As I stated at the beginning of this piece, the ultimate issue at stake in both of the referendums is whether or not the rights of the individual should triumph. Is “my body my choice” a sufficient reason to vote “yes” in this particular referendum?
(As a side note - I personally think that while the two referendum may both be ultimately about personal freedoms, the consequences of these freedoms are radically different and must be treated as such, notwithstanding the distinction that must be made between the seriousness of voting to make something law and voting whether or not the parliamentary process of making law should begin).
For many “yes” campaigners the answer to this question is also yes. Western individualism results in a centering of the self which makes appropriate the narrowing of the political perspective onto the individual - a form of political narcissism if you will. We make political decisions for ourselves and for what we believe will give us the better outcome: in other words, “If I were near to dying I think it would be most fair that I get to choose the way that this dying should happen and therefore I will vote yes so that others can also have that right.” This narrow view ignores the wider societal impacts that a change in our view of death will entail. The End of Life Choice referendum, while about a specific piece of legislation, has larger consequences than simply whether or not an individual can choose when and how their already ending life will conclude.
Firstly, the decision of an individual to choose when and how they die is not one that only impacts the individual. As much as we often like to assert our independence, very few people in a society live a life that is truly independent of others. Journalist and comedian Alice Snedden recently facilitated a dinner table discussion around the issue of euthanasia where this disagreement was explicitly articulated. In response to the assertion that life is an individual possession Snedden’s mother states that “my life couldn’t be my life without my sharing it with a whole lot of people.” A “yes” vote implicitly encourages the belief that one’s life has no bearing on others and potentially undermines the value of the interconnectedness of our being with the being of others.
Secondly, and perhaps more concerningly for me and many “no” advocates, a vote “yes” makes a statement about the power of individualism within our society. It signals an ideological shift that is inconsistent with many of the values that we claim to hold dear. If this truly is a case of “my body my choice” then how far does this individualism extend? I am not here suggesting that we should use a slippery-slope type argument, rather I think when deciding how we each will vote we need to consider the type of society that we want to live in.
For me, I want to live in a society where the rights of the individual are considered alongside the good of the many. Where life is valued for its intrinsic worth rather than our perception of its quality. This worth is reliant on our interdependence, our relationships not our insular individualistic ideals. I encourage you to be uncomfortable with the sentiment of “agree to disagree.” Perhaps the yes/no camps have irreconcilable ideologies separated by the different valuations of the rights of the individual and the good of society, but maybe recognising this disagreement as an ideological one will help us to move forward into constructive debate.
~
Jaimee van Gemerden is currently an editor at Metanoia.
