Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:05:44.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Disparate Impact” Argument Reconsidered: Making Room for Justice in the Assisted Suicide Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Carl H. Coleman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In “Should We Impose Quotas? Evaluating the ‘Disparate Impact’ Argument Against Legalization of Assisted Suicide,” Ronald Lindsay argues that it should make no difference to the debate over legalizing assisted suicide whether the risks associated with legalization would fall disproportionately on the poor, people with disabilities, racial minorities, or any other especially vulnerable social group. Even assuming such an inequitable distribution of risks would occur, he maintains, attempting to avoid such an outcome is not a good reason to deny assisted suicide to “competent persons who truly voluntarily choose it.”

Those of us who worry that legalization will differentially burden already disadvantaged segments of society have generally taken it for granted that the possibility of such disparities raises significant public policy concerns. By insisting on an explanation of this assumption — and, in so doing, making explicit the tension between autonomy and equality that underlies the assisted suicide debate — Lindsay has significantly advanced the ongoing conversation. While I disagree with his analysis, I commend him for a thoughtful, provocative, and important contribution to the literature.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Spring 2002 , pp. 17 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lindsay, R.A., “Should We Impose Quotas? Evaluating the ‘Disparate Impart’ Argument Against Legalization of Assisted Suicide,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30, no. 1 (2002): 6–16, at 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 6.Google Scholar
Id. at 13.Google Scholar
Id. at 6.Google Scholar
On the difficulty of designing effective guidelines, see Coleman, C.H. and Fleischman, A.R., “Guidelines for Physician-Assisted Suicide: Can the Challenge Be Met?,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 24 (1996): 217–24; Callahan, D. and White, M., “The Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide: Creating a Regulatory Potemkin Village,” University of Richmond Law Review, 30 (1996): 1-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, Arras, John, who has opposed the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), acknowledges that “[s]ome pain cannot be alleviated short of inducing a permanent state of unconsciousness in the patient, and some depression is unconquerable. For such unfortunate patients, the present law on PAS/euthanasia can represent an insuperable barrier to a dignified and decent death.” Arras, J.D., “Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Tragic View,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 13 (1997): 361–89, at 367.Google Scholar
Lindsay, , supra note 1, at 14.Google Scholar
Id. at 10.Google Scholar
One recent study found that, although a majority of seriously ill patients support assisted suicide or euthanasia “in an abstract situation,” few actually had considered the option for themselves. Emanuel, E.J., Fairclough, D.L. and Emanuel, L.L., “Attitudes and Desires Related to Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Among Terminally Ill Patients and Their Caregivers,” JAMA, 284 (2000): 2460–68, at 2463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, , supra note 1, at 10.Google Scholar
Id. at 6.Google Scholar
At various points in his article, Lindsay portrays the risks associated with legalization in downright positive terms. For example, when he compares the equality-based argument against legalization of assisted suicide to the use of disparate impact theory in employment discrimination cases, he characterizes the risks of legalization as simply “allowing a person to choose assisted suicide” (p. 10) or providing “more freedom of choice in the context of decisions at the end of life” (p. 10).Google Scholar
One prominent proposal for legalizing assisted suicide would limit the practice to persons whose requests are “competent, fully informed, voluntary, and enduring.” Baron, C.H. et al., “A Model State Act to Authorize and Regulate Physician-Assisted Suicide,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, 33 (1996): 1–34, at 18.Google Scholar
For a discussion of the complex factors behind such requests, see Muskin, P.R., “The Request to Die: Role for a Psychodynamic Perspective on Physician-Assisted Suicide,” JAMA, 279 (1998): 323–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, for example, Von Gunten, C.F., Ferris, F.D. and Emanuel, L.L., “Ensuring Competency in End-of-Life Care and Relational Skills,” JAMA, 284 (2000): 3051–57, at 3055 (“Clinical experience suggests that most requests for hastened death will resolve if unmet needs are addressed.”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
As the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law observed, “Like the availability of pain relief or the skills needed to diagnose depression, the kind of doctor-patient relationship envisioned by those who advocate legalizing suicide will simply be unavailable to many patients.” New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, When Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context (New York: New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, 1994), at 130–31.Google Scholar
As Patricia King and Leslie Wolf note, “physicians may be too quick to interpret ambivalent statements made by patients as being pleas to die, because at an unconscious level they perceive the patient as not deserving of money, resources, or other efforts that might be needed for care.” King, P.A. and Wolf, L.E., “Empowering and Protecting Patients: Lessons for Physician-Assisted Suicide from the African-American Experience,” Minnesota Law Review, 82 (1998): 1015–43, at 1042. See also Wolf, S.M., “Gender, Feminism, and Death,” in Wolf, S.M., ed., Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 282-317, at 293 (“In assessing whether the patient's life has become ‘meaningless,’ or a ‘burden,’ or otherwise what some might regard as suitable for extinguishing at her request, it would be remarkable if the physician's background views did not come into play on what makes a woman's life meaningful or how much of a burden on her family is too much.”); Spindelman, M.S., “Some Initial Thoughts on Sexuality and Gay Men with AIDS in Relation to Physician-Assisted Suicide,” Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 2 (2000): 91-105, at 102 (“[L]esbians and gay men may be afforded a right to an autonomous death because dominant cultural norms suggest that death is what they do or should desire.”).Google Scholar
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, supra note 16, at 125.Google Scholar
See, for example, King, and Wolf, , supra note 17; Watson, S.D., “Race, Ethnicity and Quality of Care: Inequalities and Incentives,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 27 (2001): 203–24.Google Scholar
Lindsay, , supra note 1, at 12.Google Scholar
Id. at 11.Google Scholar
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).Google Scholar
Lindsay, , supra note 1, at 6.Google Scholar
In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I served as staff counsel to the Task Force during the production of its 1994 report on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and as executive director of the Task Force during production of its 1997 supplement to that report.Google Scholar
Baron, et al., supra note 13, at 18.Google Scholar
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, supra note 16, at 126.Google Scholar
Id. at 125–26.Google Scholar
Lindsay, , supra note 1, at 9.Google Scholar
Grover, S.S., “The Business Necessity Defense in Disparate Impact Discrimination Cases,” Georgia Law Review, 30 (1996): 387–430, 399.Google Scholar
Id. at 430.Google Scholar
Lindsay, , supra note 1, at 10.Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, DHEW Pub. No. (OS) 78–0012 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1978), at § C(3).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.111(a)(3) (2001).Google Scholar
See Jones, J.H., “The Tuskegee Legacy: AIDS and the Black Community,” Hastings Center Report, 22 (Nov.–Dec. 1992): 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,” signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, available at <http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/ej/html-doc/execordr.htm>..>Google Scholar
Been, V., “What's Fairness Got To Do With It? Environmental Justice and the Siting of Locally Undesirable Land Uses,” Cornell Law Review, 6 (1993): 1001–85, at 1064.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977), at 273.Google Scholar
Lindsay, , supra note 1, at 13.Google Scholar
Id. at 13.Google Scholar
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, supra note 16, at 1–16.Google Scholar
Id. at 16.Google Scholar
See Sullivan, A.D., Hedberg, K. and Hopkins, D., “Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon, 1998–2000,” N. Engl. J. Med., 344 (2001): 605–07; Sullivan, A.D., Hedberg, K. and Fleming, D.W., “Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon — The Second Year,” N. Engl. J. Med., 342 (2000): 598-604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For a critical analysis of the Oregon data, see Foley, K. and Hendin, H., “The Oregon Report: Don't Ask, Don't Tell,” Hastings Center Report, 29 (May 1999): 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, , supra note 1, at 9.Google Scholar