Death can be good— I’ll tell you how. Just have it come Decades from now.1 Full disclosure: The above poem expresses my outlook, and I have trouble empathising with people who want to die. But that does not make me unable to evaluate objections to the expressivist argument against PAS. Reed sets forth the expressivist argument as follows: ‘[W]hen we allow PAS for individuals who are terminally ill or facing some severe disease or disability, we send a message of disrespect (...) to all individuals who face such adversities in that we imply that they are inferior or their lives are not worth living precisely insofar as they are diseased or disabled’.2 The passage of mine that Reed quotes, however, was not intended to set forth an expressivist view. Rather than saying the double standard of selective legalisation ‘send[s] a message of disrespect’,3 it says this double standard in fact involves a systematic devaluation of some people’s lives. I will argue that there are conditions under which this double standard does send a message of disrespect, but first I want to disassociate myself from the expressivist formulations of Coleman and Keown that …. (shrink)

This article deals both with greatly extended finite life and with immortality and uses the term ‘greatly extended life’ to cover both. Except where indicated, it proceeds from some assumptions adapted from Christine Overall. First, people would know the life expectancy in their society or would know that they were immortal. Second, everyone would have the opportunity to choose greatly extended life. Third, greatly extended life would not be mandatory; people would be able to opt out at any point.

Consider these three positions about physician-assisted suicide:Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal for everyone.Physician-assisted suicide should be legal for only the terminally ill.Physician-assisted suicide should be legal for all competent adults.So far, the debate in America has been primarily between positions 1 and 2. I think it should be between positions 1 and 3. Both those positions embody reasonable viewpoints, and I will not try to decide between them in this chapter. But I will argue that the double standard embodied in (...) position 2 is morally untenable. (shrink)

In a 2017 article in The Providence Journal, local poet Christopher Johnson says poetry is "something I have to do."1 He adds, "In this political climate, where every group that doesn't identify as white, male and in power feels under attack by government, I have found my voice crying out against the machine more than usual. And I don't have a choice."2 He invokes the statement of singer, songwriter, and activist Nina Simone: "An artist's duty … is to reflect the (...) times."3In an earlier Providence Journal article, a different local poet says, "It is my most sincere wish to bring people together through poetry."4My own approach to poetry could hardly be more different. I don't have to write poetry. I choose to do it.... (shrink)