{"id":11477,"date":"2022-03-30T15:12:23","date_gmt":"2022-03-30T04:12:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/?p=11477"},"modified":"2022-07-22T00:21:13","modified_gmt":"2022-07-21T14:21:13","slug":"assisted-dying-and-palliative-care-an-argument-for-chewing-gum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/2022\/03\/30\/assisted-dying-and-palliative-care-an-argument-for-chewing-gum\/","title":{"rendered":"Assisted dying and palliative care: An argument for \u2018chewing gum\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

In his classic book <\/span>Straight and Crooked Thinking<\/span><\/i><\/a>\u00a0\u2013 now in its fifth edition (2011) \u2013 Robert H. Thouless describes many dishonest debating tricks, often with catchy names, such as the ‘argument of the beard’.\u00a0 However, one that plagues so much of the debate over voluntary assisted dying, though well covered in the book, is given only the convoluted description \u201cthe argument that we should not make efforts against X, which is admittedly evil, because there is a worse evil Y against which our efforts should be directed.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

If ever there were a debating trick in search of a name, this would be it. I suggest the term the \u2018chewing gum argument\u2019, a reference to the notorious comment by US President Lyndon Baines Johnson about walking and chewing gum \u2013 although, <\/span>the origin of the saying is disputed<\/span><\/a>. The point of the comment is that it should be possible to walk \u2013 or fart, to use LBJ\u2019s expression \u2013 and chew gum at the same time.<\/span><\/p>\n

Having now consulted this classic book, I am satisfied that my suggestion is quite apposite, as the explanation of this trick includes the passage: \u201cThe dishonesty of this argument lies in the fact that there is no good reason why we should not try to do both.\u201d The fifth edition of the book even gives an interesting Australian example from the Apartheid era, concerning protests against the visits of racially segregated sporting teams from South Africa.<\/span><\/p>\n

The formal reply to the trick is given as: \u201cIf Y is a worse evil than X, this is no reason for not trying to remove X, although it is a sound reason for fighting even more energetically against Y.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Those who are familiar with the assisted dying debate will recognise that what has inspired this soubriquet of the<\/span> \u2018chewing gum argument\u2019 is the persistent proposition put forward by opponents of assisted dying that we should not legislate to introduce it until every effort has been made to extend and improve the coverage of palliative care services for the whole population.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the terms used by the book\u2019s author, this can be stated in the following proposition: the fact that palliative care may not meet the needs of a small proportion of people suffering from terminal illness, leading them to request access to assisted dying, might perhaps be conceded, but it pales into insignificance compared to the much greater proportion of people suffering from terminal illness who cannot access any palliative care services at all. And, therefore, we need to direct our efforts toward providing more and better palliative care services before thinking of legislating for assisted dying.<\/span><\/p>\n

As Thouless \u2013 and LBJ \u2013 would say, there is no good reason why we should not do both. In fact, we cannot offer people suffering from terminal illness a genuine choice <\/span>unless<\/span><\/i> we do both.<\/span><\/p>\n

The task of government requires many activities to be undertaken simultaneously, and all effective governments multi-task all the time. To suggest that it is somehow inappropriate or dangerous to multi-task in government is nothing short of absurd.<\/span><\/p>\n

A simple rebuttal to the \u2018chewing gum argument\u2019 is to say: \u201cOh, so now you\u2019re telling me we can\u2019t walk and chew gum at the same time. I can\u2019t imagine how much trouble the government would be in if that were actually true.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

When they retreat to the position that it might be possible to do both but it shouldn\u2019t be done, the reply is: \u201cThat\u2019s pretty heartless \u2013 to deny people suffering severely at the end of life their last choice. No wonder ordinary decent people don\u2019t agree with you.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

And when they retreat to the threat to palliative care if assisted dying is introduced, then we have them, with much evidence from Australia and overseas to show that the consequence is a benefit to palliative care rather than a threat.<\/span><\/p>\n

But we can say all this really nicely because \u201cwe agree with you that palliative care is of the utmost importance, and needs to be fostered.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Author’s note: This article was originally prepared during the West Australian parliamentary debate over that state\u2019s Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill in 2019. It has been updated for today\u2019s audience.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Photo by Domonik Lange<\/a> on Unsplash.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In his classic book Straight and Crooked Thinking\u00a0\u2013 now in its fifth edition (2011) \u2013 Robert H. Thouless describes many<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":475,"featured_media":11478,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[324],"coauthors":[262],"class_list":["post-11477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-science-health","tag-voluntary-assisted-dying"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/475"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11477"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11477\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11482,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11477\/revisions\/11482"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11478"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11477"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=11477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}