IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v291y2021ics0277953621008339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The discursive context of medical aid in dying: A paradox of control?

Author

Listed:
  • Young, Jessica E.
  • Jaye, Chrystal
  • Egan, Richard
  • Winters, Janine
  • Egan, Tony

Abstract

Individual agency is central to late modern and neoliberal concepts of the self and notions of a good death. Assisted dying can be understood as a reflection of these ideas in that control over death resides with the individual. The aim of this article is to explore individual agency and control and employ concepts of biopower and freedom to illustrate the paradoxes inherent within assisted dying. Assisted dying is currently of wide interest due to legislative change. At the time of research, the New Zealand Parliament was passing the End of Life Choice Act, yet there had been no research with people approaching the end of life about assisted dying. Through the media we recruited and interviewed 14 people approaching the end of life who would have considered choosing assisted dying if it were available to them. Interviews were analyzed using an immersion/crystallization thematic analysis. Assisted dying appealed to participants because it offered control. This article examines the discursive context of control as well as the participants’ perception of control to offer insights into how paradoxically, a medical regime of assisted dying reinforces health professionals as in control of the circumstances of dying. We argue that although legalized medical assisted dying is highly regulated and monitored, thus limiting freedom, the option of assisted dying also increases freedom for the dying person. Within this paradox of control, there is still scope for choice and an ethical making of the self, although limited by the biopolitical regime, that equates to a degree of freedom for participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Young, Jessica E. & Jaye, Chrystal & Egan, Richard & Winters, Janine & Egan, Tony, 2021. "The discursive context of medical aid in dying: A paradox of control?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:291:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621008339
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621008339
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114501?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McInerney, Fran, 2000. ""Requested death": a new social movement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 137-154, January.
    2. Nissim, Rinat & Gagliese, Lucia & Rodin, Gary, 2009. "The desire for hastened death in individuals with advanced cancer: A longitudinal qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 165-171, July.
    3. Seale, Clive & Addington-Hall, Julia, 1994. "Euthanasia: Why people want to die earlier," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 647-654, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yvonne Denier & Chris Gastmans & Nele De Bal & Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé, 2010. "Communication in nursing care for patients requesting euthanasia: a qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(23‐24), pages 3372-3380, December.
    2. Sanders, Caroline & Rogers, Anne & Gately, Claire & Kennedy, Anne, 2008. "Planning for end of life care within lay-led chronic illness self-management training: The significance of 'death awareness' and biographical context in participant accounts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 982-993, February.
    3. Crossley, Nick, 2006. "The field of psychiatric contention in the UK, 1960-2000," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 552-563, February.
    4. Karsoho, Hadi & Fishman, Jennifer R. & Wright, David Kenneth & Macdonald, Mary Ellen, 2016. "Suffering and medicalization at the end of life: The case of physician-assisted dying," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 188-196.
    5. Danyliv, Andriy & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2015. "Attitudes towards legalising physician provided euthanasia in Britain: The role of religion over time," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 52-56.
    6. Peretti-Watel, P. & Bendiane, M.K. & Moatti, J.P., 2005. "Attitudes toward palliative care, conceptions of euthanasia and opinions about its legalization among French physicians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 1781-1793, April.
    7. Vanderslott, Samantha, 2019. "Exploring the meaning of pro-vaccine activism across two countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 59-66.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:291:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621008339. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.