MAiD and the Death of Dignity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7202/1121340arKeywords:
dignity, medical assistance in dying, MAiD, CanadaLanguage(s):
EnglishAbstract
The concept of human dignity figures prominently in discussions about medical assistance in dying. Yet the notion of ‘dignity’ is often ambiguous. This paper seeks to clear up some of this ambiguity by distinguishing two different but related conceptions of dignity, the one a fundamentally moral notion (‘Dignity’ — upper case) and the other a more aesthetic conception (‘dignity’ — lower case). The dynamic relationship that exists between the moral notion of ‘Dignity’ and its aesthetic counterpart (‘dignity’) is examined. While a pluralistic society requires both notions, only the objective moral notion (Dignity) is adequate to serve as the foundation of a fundamental legal regime. While any pluralistic society must provide opportunities for the expression of subjective aesthetic notions of dignity, the latter can neither serve as the foundation of a comprehensive public ethic in general, nor can it set the parameters of a public policy on medicalized homicide. Indeed, the unmitigated expansion of a particular notion of ‘dignity’ threatens to expunge the more fundamental conception of Dignity that serves as the foundation of any liberal democratic society.
References
1. Lyon C, Lemmens T, Kim SYH. Canadian medical assistance in dying: Provider concentration, policy capture, and need for reform. American Journal of Bioethics. 2025;25(5):6-25.
2. Pullman D. Dying with dignity and the death of dignity. Health Law Journal. 1996;4:197-29.
3. Pullman D. Human dignity and the ethics and aesthetics of pain and suffering. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2002;23(1):75-94.
4. Pullman D. Universalism, particularism and the ethics of dignity. Christian Bioethics. 2002;7(3):333-58.
5. Pullman D. Death, dignity and moral nonsense. Journal of Palliative Care. 2004;20(3):171-78.
6. Pullman D. Human non-persons, feticide, and the erosion of dignity. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2010;7(4):345-51.
7. Pullman D. Yes, there are universal ethical principles that should govern the conduct of medicine and research worldwide. In: Kaplan A, Arp R, editors. Current Debates in Bioethics. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014. p. 17-26.
8. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
9. Wiebe K, Mullin A. Choosing death in unjust conditions: hope, autonomy and harm reduction. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2024;50(6):407-412.
10. Dalrymple T. The case for cannibalism: If everything is permissible between consenting adutls, why not? City Journal. 5 Jan 2004.
11. Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993], 107 DLR (4th) 342 (S.C.C.).
12. Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2015] 1 SCR 331.
13. Briscoe JC. Dying, but not alone. The New Atlantis. Summer 2021.
14. Chochinov HM. Dignity Therapy. New York: Oxford; 2012.
15. Sonu Gaind K, Bertrand M, Chisvin M, et al. More Canadian psychiatrists respond: no MAiD for mental illness. Impact Ethics. 28 Nov 2023.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Daryl Pullman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Canadian Journal of Bioethics applies the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License to all its publications. Authors therefore retain copyright of their publication, e.g., they can reuse their publication, link to it on their home page or institutional website, deposit a PDF in a public repository. However, the authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, distribute, and/or copy their publication, so long as the original authors and source are cited.
_smaller.png){kind=logo}
