MAiD in SA: The Ethical Debates

Is medical assistance in dying (MAiD) ever an ethical option? Is it good? Is it right? Is it just?

There are three main ethical arguments for MAiD:

1. The argument from autonomy or self-determination says that we have free will to control our life choices, according to our chosen, stable values, while refraining from harming others;
2. The argument from suffering contends that death is a permissible liberation from all-consuming, intractable and unbearable suffering; and
3. The argument from moral equivalence holds that there is no general morally relevant difference between MAiD and accepted medical practices, such as refusing life-sustaining medical interventions.

Likewise, there are three main ethical arguments against MAiD:

1. The argument from theology claims that God forbids MAiD;
2. The argument from doctors’ professional duties holds that doctors should heal and save lives, not end lives; and
3. The argument from abuse says that MAiD will expose vulnerable individuals to exploitation and will extend towards the inclusion of more classes of individuals (minors; the mentally ill) thus sliding down a slippery slope from which one cannot escape.

No matter where you stand, the most important point is this: the debate about the ethics of MAiD is one that will never reach a conclusion.

Fortunately for us, in South Africa we have a constitutional democracy where our Constitution provides a way to resolve ethical differences.

Critically, this means that the ethical debate can thus shift from the ethics of MAiD to the ethics of legalising MAiD. In short, in South Africa we need to shift our ethics discourse to the permission granted to us by the foundational values of the Constitution.

In the next installment in our MAiD in SA series, we will explore our Constitutional right to medical assistance in dying. You can show your support for DignitySA’s campaign to decriminalise MAiD in South Africa by sharing this series and recommending it to others.