Objections to MAID Are Principled, Not Pragramtic

Wayne Sumner offers a devastating response to MAID critics in the Canadian Journal of Bioethics. 

He distinguishes between two different kinds of objection to MAID: principled v pragmatic. Principled objections usually take the form of contending that MAID is just inherently wrong, or at least ethically problematic, by virtue of intentionally causing death or violating the sanctity of life. Pragmatic objections, on the other hand, raise no ethical issue with MAID itself, but are critical of the legal regime established to administer it: its eligibility criteria are too broadly drawn, or its procedures are too lax, or its safeguards are insufficiently stringent. 

Sumner then shows that MAID is not as special as it is commonly made out to be. By situating MAID within the broader context of end-of-life care, it becomes clear that every alleged concern about MAID applies equally to WLST, VSED, or any other option. 

So, until a better explanation of what the critics find to be so special about MAID, Sumner contends that their objection to it is, at bottom, principled rather than pragmatic. Consequently, the ultimate issue for them is not patient safety or other pragmatic concerns but the ethical status of MAID itself.