Courage is not the absence of fear. Courageous people do feel fear, but they are able to manage and overcome their fear so that it does not stop them taking action.

They often use the fear to ensure that they are not overly confident and that they take the appropriate actions.

How do they manage this? They have trained themselves to manage their emotional response to fear, so that they manage it rather than it managing them. This page sets out how you can learn to do this.

What is Courage?

Courage is a highly prized virtue, and many famous and respected people have spoken or written about it over the years. We probably all have an idea of what we mean by courage, or bravery as it is sometimes known.

We often let fear dictate our decisions. However, living a courageous life is one of the best ways to find success in business and in life. In fact, according to Aristotle courage is the first of human virtues because it makes all others possible. Famous positive thinker Dale Carnegie once advised people to do the thing they fear as the quickest way to conquer fear. So how do you banish fear and live the life you want? These things might help.

Courageous people stand up against things that threaten them or the things or people that they care about. They take action in a way that is consistent with their values. Sometimes, however, the action required is not necessarily loud, but quiet and thoughtful.

The other view that is often taken of courage is that it requires the taking of genuine risk, but with thought.

Courage and being brave is not about blindly rushing in, but thinking about it and then doing it anyway if it is necessary

The Benefits of Courage:

Acting courageously generally makes us feel good, because it involves mastering emotions.

The very fact that we celebrate courage so much tells us that it is a very human activity. Courage, in the sense of acting in a way that responds to risk appropriately, not over-confidently or in a cowardly way, will also help us to accomplish 'good' things.

Courage also helps us to act against those who threaten, or who act in a bad way. The Western world has traditionally revered bravery for itself; success is not necessary if courage is shown

An Example of Courage

The celebration of bravery as an end in itself is seen in the celebration in the UK of Robert Falcon Scott, a man who not only failed in his mission to get to the South Pole first, but died on the way back, along with three of his team.

Spectacular failure, but unmistakeable courage: he (and they) knew the risks, yet chose to go ahead with their expedition anyway.

Courage Governs and Overcomes Fear and Overconfidence



Fear and overconfidence are generally viewed as undesirable emotions. They make us feel bad, either at the time or afterwards.

Fear:

Fear, like many emotions, is closely linked to survival.

We are afraid of things that threaten our survival, and our reaction is governed by an adrenaline response (which usually means that we are driven to 'fight' or 'flight'). The physical effects of adrenaline include cold, clammy skin, as the blood is withdrawn to the vital organs to enable you to run away fast, the sensation of 'butterflies' in the stomach, shivering or trembling, and even chattering teeth.

Being afraid tells you when you are concerned that you may not survive something. However, as our page on Managing Emotions points out, your emotional response may not be rational. It is almost certainly linked to memory, perhaps a past experience, or something you may have read.

Questions to ask yourself to bring courage into play include:

What am I actually afraid of? Is it the right thing to be afraid of? Should I be this afraid of it - or rationally, should I be less or more afraid?

What harm can this thing actually do to me or others?

What are the things that could happen as a result of my actions and/or inactions?

What is the worst that could happen has a result of my actions and/or inactions?

What are the risks to me and to others?



Courage gives us the strength to evaluate an emotional response (fear) and act rationally and rightly.

Over-Confidence

Confidence is good.

Confidence gives us the power to act on our convictions, have faith in ourselves or in others, and take action. Over-confidence however, means that we may be too ready to take action, and take unnecessary risks.

Over-confidence is harder to identify than fear, because it's a very positive feeling. Confidence feels good, and so does over-confidence. We don't feel afraid, because we have not properly evaluated the risks.

To help to identify and overcome over-confidence, questions to ask yourself include:

What do I believe I can achieve?

How will what I do make a difference?

How do I know that my actions will have an effect? How can I be sure that they will not do any harm?

Answering these questions rationally, and not with bravado, will help you to evaluate whether you are feeling rightly confident, or over-confident.



Fear and Over-Confidence are Two Sides of the Same Coin.

It is important to know whether you tend to suffer from fear or over-confidence, so that you can work on how to overcome that weakness, ensuring that you act courageously, and not either be overcome by your fears or take unnecessary risks because of over-confidence

Developing Courage, According to Aristotle

Aristotle suggested that those who tend towards fear should think through how they can practise greater confidence, and those who tend towards risky behaviour should consider how they can learn greater respect for the real risks and dangers of a situation.

"The man, then, who faces and who fears the right things and with the right aim, and in the right way and at the right time, and who feels confidence under the corresponding conditions, is brave."

Aristotle, (1115b15-19) NE III.7



Finding a Balance:

Showing courage, as opposed to either cowardice or cockiness/over-confidence, is all about finding the right balance, which means that you need to think it through beforehand.

Ultimately, perhaps the question to ask yourself is:

How will I feel when I look back on this? Will I feel that I have acted in accordance with my values?

If the answer to the question is that you will be comfortable that you have done what is right, and is consistent with your values, then that is a good way to act.



On the other hand, if you're concerned that you will feel that you 'ran away' or 'were a bit reckless', then you might want to think about alternative actions.

Crucially, try not to let your emotions, whether fear or over-confidence, get the better of you, but think rationally about what you want to do, and what is the right thing to do in the situation.





1. Embrace vulnerability

People who live fear-based lives often have little or no confidence in themselves. If you feel afraid of other people seeing who you are, open up and become more vulnerable.

2. Admit you have fears

In addition to opening yourself up to others, admit you have fears. Identifying what you are truly afraid of gives you the information you need to overcome the fears and insecurities.

3. Face your fears

Exposing yourself to your fears is a great way to overcome a phobia or fear. People who feel afraid of snakes often change their minds after handling snakes with the help of a trained professional.



4. Think positively

Part of a positive attitude is allowing others to love you and show you affection. If you are the kind of person who refuses favors, let others do nice things for you.

5. Reduce your stress

Sometimes you experience fear due to exhaustion. Make sure you eat well, get enough sleep and exercise. Take breaks and take your vacation time. We all need a break.

6. Demonstrate courage

Another important way to overcome fear is to show your courage. Take the time to help a person who is in a dangerous situation. Instead of ignoring a person in distress, call for help or take bold step to intervene.

7.Know failure but press forward

If you fail, don't curl up into a ball or head to a metaphorical corner. Instead, keep moving forward.



8. Cope with risk and uncertainty

You can conquer your fears by learning to deal with life's uncertainties. If you fear losing your home to a foreclosure, set up an emergency savings account. If you fear losing your spouse to another person or losing your client, figure out what it takes to keep them.

9. Continue to learn

Continue to grow by constantly trying to learn and improve your skills. Take all opportunities learn a new skill. Read top thought leaders books and read everything you can about your industry. The more you know the less risk you have to take to be successful.

10. Accept your challenges

Stay on the course even after confronting challenges and fears. Instead of hiding face what lies ahead. In many cases, fear is just in your head. Most of what you fear will never come to pass. Don't waste time worrying when you can get ahead by living.



We cant and shouldn't let FEAR drive our decisions. We shouldn't let FEAR stop us from what we want and what we deserve. We shouldn't let fear have control. So deal with FEAR so you can start focusing on the most important things like...accomplishing your goals.

Certain pleasures can make enduring suffering worthwhile. A renowned surgeon on how to cope with ageing and sickness



In 380 BC, Plato wrote a dialogue, the Laches, in which Socrates and two Athenian generals seek to answer a seemingly simple question: What is courage? The generals, Laches and Nicias, had gone to Socrates to resolve a dispute between them over whether boys undergoing military training should be taught to fight in armor. Nicias thinks they should. Laches thinks they shouldn't.

Well, what's the ultimate purpose of the training? Socrates asks.

To instill courage, they decide.

So then, "What is courage?"

Courage, Laches responds, "is a certain endurance of the soul."

Socrates is skeptical. He points out that there are times when the courageous thing to do is not to persevere but to retreat or even flee. Can there not be foolish endurance?

Laches agrees but tries again. Perhaps courage is "wise endurance."

This definition seemed more apt. But Socrates questions whether courage is necessarily so tightly joined to wisdom. Don't we admire courage in the pursuit of an unwise cause, he asks?

Well, yes, Laches admits.

Now Nicias steps in. Courage, he argues, is simply "knowledge of what is to be feared or hoped, either in war or in anything else." But Socrates finds fault here, too. For one can have courage without perfect knowledge of the future. Indeed, one often must.

The generals are stumped. The story ends with them coming to no final definition. But the reader comes to a possible one: Courage is strength in the face of knowledge of what is to be feared or hoped. Wisdom is prudent strength.

At least two kinds of courage are required in aging and sickness. The first is the courage to confront the reality of mortality-the courage to seek out the truth of what is to be feared and what is to be hoped. Such courage is difficult enough. We have many reasons to shrink from it. But even more daunting is the second kind of courage-the courage to act on the truth we find. The problem is that the wise course is so frequently unclear. For a long while, I thought that this was simply because of uncertainty. When it is hard to know what will happen, it is hard to know what to do. But the challenge, I've come to see, is more fundamental than that. One has to decide whether one's fears or one's hopes are what should matter most.





I had returned to Boston from Ohio, and to my work at the hospital, when I got a late-night page: Jewel Douglass was back, unable to hold food down again. Her cancer was progressing. She'd made it three and a half months-longer than I'd thought she'd have, but shorter than she'd expected. For a week, the symptoms had mounted: they started with bloating, became waves of crampy abdominal pain, then nausea, and progressed to vomiting. Her oncologist sent her to the hospital. A scan showed her ovarian cancer had multiplied, grown, and partly obstructed her intestine again. Her abdomen had also filled with fluid, a new problem for her. The deposits of tumor had stuffed up her lymphatic system, which serves as a kind of storm drain for the lubricating fluids that the body's internal linings secrete. When the system is blocked, the fluid has nowhere to go. When that happens above the diaphragm, as it did with Sara Monopoli's lung cancer, the chest fills up like a ribbed bottle until you have trouble breathing. If the system gets blocked up below the diaphragm, as it did with Douglass, the belly fills up like a rubber ball until you feel as if you will burst.

Walking into Douglass's hospital room, I'd never have known she was as sick as she was if I hadn't seen the scan. "Well, look who's here!" she said, as if I'd just arrived at a cocktail party.

"How are you, doctor?"

"I think I'm supposed to ask you that," I said.

She smiled brightly and pointed around the room. "This is my husband, Arthur, whom you know, and my son, Brett." She'd got me grinning. Here it was eleven o'clock at night, she couldn't hold down an ounce of water, and still she had her lipstick on, her silver hair brushed straight, and she was insisting on making introductions. She wasn't oblivious to her predicament. She just hated being a patient and the grimness of it all.

I talked to her about what the scan showed. She had no unwillingness to face the facts. But what to do about them was another matter. Like my father's doctors, the oncologist and I had a menu of options. There was a whole range of new chemotherapy regimens that could be tried to shrink the tumor burden. I had a few surgical options for dealing with her situation, as well. With surgery, I told her, I wouldn't be able to remove the intestinal blockage, but I might be able to bypass it. I'd either connect an obstructed loop to an unobstructed one or I'd disconnect the bowel above the blockage and give her an ileostomy, which she'd have to live with. I'd also put in a couple drainage catheters-permanent spigots that could be opened to release the fluids from her blocked-up drainage ducts or intestines when necessary. Surgery risked serious complications-wound breakdown, leakage of bowel into her abdomen, infections-but it offered her the only way she could regain her ability to eat. I also told her that we did not have to do either chemo or surgery. We could provide medications to control her pain and nausea and arrange for hospice at home.

The options overwhelmed her. They all sounded terrifying. She didn't know what to do. I realized, with shame, that I'd reverted to being Dr. Informative-here are the facts and figures; what do you want to do? So I stepped back and asked the questions I'd asked my father: What were her biggest fears and concerns? What goals were most important to her? What tradeoffs was she willing to make, and what ones was she not?



Not everyone is able to answer such questions, but she did. She said she wanted to be without pain, nausea, or vomiting. She wanted to eat. Most of all, she wanted to get back on her feet. Her biggest fear was that she wouldn't be able to live life again and enjoy it-that she wouldn't be able to return home and be with the people she loved.

As for what trade-offs she was willing to make, what sacrifices she was willing to endure now for the possibility of more time later, "Not a lot," she said. Her perspective on time was shifting, focusing her on the present and those closest to her. She told me that uppermost in her mind was a wedding that weekend that she was desperate not to miss. "Arthur's brother is marrying my best friend," she said. She'd set them up on their first date. Now the wedding was just two days away, on Saturday at 1:00 p.m. "It's just the best thing," she said. Her husband was going to be the ring bearer. She was supposed to be a bridesmaid. She was willing to do anything to be there, she said.

The direction suddenly became clear. Chemotherapy had only a slim chance of improving her current situation and it came at substantial cost to the time she had now. An operation would never let her get to the wedding, either. So we made a plan to see if we could get her there. We'd have her come back afterward to decide on the next steps.

With a long needle, we tapped a liter of tea-colored fluid from her abdomen, which made her feel at least temporarily better. We gave her medication to control her nausea. And she was able to drink enough liquids to stay hydrated. At three o'clock Friday afternoon, we discharged her with instructions to drink nothing thicker than apple juice and return to see me after the wedding.

She didn't make it. She came back to the hospital that same night. Just the car ride, with all its swaying and bumps, set her vomiting again. The crampy attacks returned. Things only got worse at home. We agreed surgery was the best course now and scheduled her for it the next day. I would focus on restoring her ability to eat and putting drainage tubes in. Afterward, she could decide if she wanted more chemotherapy or to go on hospice. She was as clear as I've seen anyone be about her goals and what she wanted to do to achieve them.



Yet still she was in doubt. The following morning, she told me to cancel the operation.

"I'm afraid," she said. She didn't think she had the courage to go ahead with the procedure. She'd tossed all night thinking about it. She imagined the pain, the tubes, the indignities of the possible ileostomy, and then there were the incomprehensible horrors of the complications she could face. "I don't want to take risky chances," she said.

As we talked, it became clear that her difficulty wasn't lack of courage to act in the face of risks. Her difficulty was in sorting out how to think about them. Her greatest fear was of suffering, she said. Although we were doing the operation in order to reduce her suffering, couldn't the procedure make it worse rather than better?

Yes, I said. It could. Surgery offered her the possibility of being able to eat again and a very good likelihood of controlling her nausea, but it carried substantial risk of giving her only pain without improvement or adding yet new miseries. She had, I estimated for her, a 75 per cent chance I'd make her future better, at least for a little while, and a 25 percent chance I'd make it worse.

So what then was the right thing for her to do? And why was the choice so agonizing? The choice, I realized, was far more complicated than a risk calculation. For how do you weigh relief from nausea, and the chances of being able to eat again, against the possibilities of pain, of infections, of having to live with stooling into a bag?





The brain gives us two ways to evaluate experiences like suffering- there is how we apprehend such experiences in the moment and how we look at them afterward- and the two ways are deeply contradictory. The Nobel Prize-winning researcher Daniel Kahneman illuminated what happens in a series of experiments he recounted in his seminal book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. In one of them, he and University of Toronto physician Donald Redelmeier studied 287 patients undergoing colonoscopy and kidney stone procedures while awake. The researchers gave the patients a device that let them rate their pain every sixty seconds on a scale of one (no pain) to ten (intolerable pain), a system that provided a quantifiable measure of their moment-by-moment experience of suffering. At the end, the patients were also asked to rate the total amount of pain they experienced during the procedure. The procedures lasted anywhere from four minutes to more than an hour. And the patients typically reported extended periods of low to moderate pain punctuated by moments of significant pain. A third of the colonoscopy patients and a quarter of the kidney stone patients reported a pain score of ten at least once during the procedure.

Our natural assumption is that the final ratings would represent something like the sum of the moment-by-moment ones. We believe that having a longer duration of pain is worse than a shorter duration and that having a greater average level of pain is worse than having a lower average level. But this wasn't what the patients reported at all. Their final ratings largely ignored the duration of pain. Instead, the ratings were best predicted by what Kahneman termed the "Peak- End rule": an average of the pain experienced at just two moments-the single worst moment of the procedure and the pain experienced at the very end. The gastroenterologists conducting the procedures rated the level of pain they had inflicted very similarly to their patients, according to the level of pain at the moment of greatest intensity and the level at the end, not according to the total amount.

People seemed to have two different selves- an experiencing self who endures every moment equally and a remembering self who gives almost all the weight of judgment afterward to two single points in time, the worst moment and the last one. The remembering self seems to stick to the Peak-End rule even when the ending is an anomaly. Just a few minutes without pain at the end of their medical procedure dramatically reduced patients' overall pain ratings even after they'd experienced more than half an hour of high level of pain. "That wasn't so terrible," they'd reported afterward. A bad ending skewed the pain scores upward just as dramatically.

Studies in numerous settings have confirmed the Peak-End rule and our neglect of duration of suffering. Research has also shown that the phenomenon applies just as readily to the way people rate pleasurable experiences. Everyone knows the experience of watching sports when a team, having performed beautifully for nearly the entire game, blows it in the end. We feel that the ending ruins the whole experience. Yet there's a contradiction at the root of that judgment. The experiencing self had whole hours of pleasure and just a moment of displeasure, but the remembering self sees no pleasure at all.



If the remembering self and the experiencing self can come to radically different opinions about the same experience, then the difficult question is which one to listen to. This was Jewel Douglass's torment at bottom, and to a certain extent mine, if I was to help guide her. Should we listen to the remembering-or, in this case, anticipating-self that focuses on the worst things she might endure? Or should we listen to the experiencing self, which would likely have a lower average amount of suffering in the time to come if she underwent surgery rather than if she just went home-and might even get to eat for a while again?

In the end, people don't view their life as merely the average of all of its moments-which, after all, is mostly nothing much plus some sleep. For human beings, life is meaningful because it is a story. A story has a sense of a whole, and its arc is determined by the significant moments, the ones where something happens. Measurements of people's minute-by-minute levels of pleasure and pain miss this fundamental aspect of human existence. A seemingly happy life may be empty. A seemingly difficult life may be devoted to a great cause. We have purposes larger than ourselves. Unlike your experiencing self-which is absorbed in the moment- your remembering self is attempting to recognize not only the peaks of joy and valleys of misery but also how the story works out as a whole. That is profoundly affected by how things ultimately turn out. Why would a football fan let a few flubbed minutes at the end of the game ruin three hours of bliss? Because a football game is a story. And in stories, endings matter.

Yet, we also recognize that the experiencing self should not be ignored. The peak and the ending are not the only things that count. In favoring the moment of intense joy over steady happiness, the remembering self is hardly always wise.

"An inconsistency is built into the design of our minds," Kahneman observes. "We have strong preferences about the duration of our experiences of pain and pleasure. We want pain to be brief and pleasure to last. But our memory... has evolved to represent the most intense moment of an episode of pain or pleasure (the peak) and the feelings when the episode was at its end. A memory that neglects duration will not serve our preference for long pleasure and short pains."

When our time is limited and we are uncertain about how best to serve our priorities, we are forced to deal with the fact that both the experiencing self and the remembering self matter. We do not want to endure long pain and short pleasure. Yet certain pleasures can make enduring suffering worthwhile. The peaks are important, and so is the ending.





Jewel Douglass didn't know if she was willing to face the suffering that surgery might inflict on her and feared being left worse off. "I don't want to take risky chances," she said, and by that, I realized, she meant that she didn't want to take a high-stakes gamble on how her story would turn out. On the one hand, there was so much she still hoped for, however seemingly mundane. That very week, she'd gone to church, driven to the store, made family dinner, watched a television show with Arthur, had her grandson come to her for advice, and made wedding plans with dear friends. If she could be allowed to have even a little of that-if she could be freed from what her tumor was doing to her to enjoy just a few more such experiences with the people she loved-she would be willing to endure a lot. On the other hand, she didn't want to chance a result even worse than the one she already faced with her intestines cinched shut and fluid filling her abdomen like a dripping faucet. It seemed as if there were no way forward. But as we talked that Saturday morning in her hospital room, with her family around her and the operating room standing by downstairs, I came to understand she was telling me everything I needed to know.

We should go to surgery, I told her, but with the directions she'd just spelled out-to do what I could to enable her to return home to her family while not taking risky chances. I'd put in a small laparoscope. I'd look around. And I'd attempt to unblock her intestine only if I saw that I could do it fairly easily. If it looked difficult and risky, then I'd just put in tubes to drain her backed-up pipes. I'd aim to do what might have sounded like a contradiction in terms: a palliative operation, an operation whose overriding priority, whatever the violence and risks inherent, was to do only what was likely to make her feel better immediately.

She remained quiet, thinking.





Her daughter took her hand. "We should do this, Mom," she said.

"Okay," Douglass said. "But no risky chances."

"No risky chances," I said.

When she was asleep under anesthesia, I made a half- inch incision above her belly button. It let out a gush of thin, blood-tinged fluid. I slipped my gloved finger inside to feel for space to insert the fiberoptic scope. But a hard loop of tumor-caked bowel blocked the entry. I wasn't even going to be able to put in a camera. I had the resident take the knife and extend the incision upward until it was large enough to see in directly and get a hand inside. At the bottom of the hole, I saw a free loop of distended bowel-it looked like an overinflated pink inner tube- that I thought we might be able to pull up to the skin and make into an ileostomy so she could eat again. But it remained tethered by tumor, and as we tried to chip it free, it became evident that we were risking creating holes we'd never be able to repair. Leakage inside the abdomen would be a calamity. So we stopped. Her aims for us were clear. No risky chances. We shifted focus and put in two long, plastic drainage tubes. One we inserted directly into her stomach in order to empty the contents backed up there; the other we laid in the open abdominal cavity to empty the fluid outside her gut. Then we closed up, and we were done.

I told her family we weren't able to help her eat again, and when Douglass woke up I told her, as well. Her daughter had tears. Her husband thanked us for trying. Douglass tried to put a brave face on it.



"I was never obsessed with food anyway," she said.

The tubes relieved her nausea and abdominal pain greatly-"90 percent," she said. The nurses taught her how to open the gastric tube into a bag when she felt sick and the abdominal tube when her belly felt too tight. We told her she could drink what ever she wanted and even eat soft food for the taste. Three days after surgery she went home with hospice to look after her. Before she left, her oncologist and the oncology nurse practitioner saw her.

Douglass asked them how long they thought she had.

"They both filled up with tears," she told me. "It was kind of my answer."

A few days after Douglass left the hospital, she and her family allowed me to stop by her home after work. She answered the door herself, wearing a robe because of the tubes and apologizing for it. We sat in her living room, and I asked how she was doing.

She was doing okay, she said. "I think I have a measure that I'm slip, slip, slipping," but she had been seeing old friends and relatives all day, and she loved it. "It's my lifeblood, really, so I want to do it." Her family staggered the visits to keep them from tiring her out.





She said she didn't like all the contraptions sticking out of her. The tubes were uncomfortable where they poked out of her belly. "I didn't know that there would be this constant pressure," she said. But the first time she found that just opening a tube could take away her nausea, "I looked at the tube and said, 'Thank you for being there.' "

She was taking just Tylenol for pain. She didn't like narcotics because they made her drowsy and weak, and that interfered with seeing people. "I've probably confused the hospice people because I said at some point, 'I don't want any discomfort. Bring it on' "-by which she meant the narcotics. "But I'm not there yet."

Mostly, we talked about memories from her life, and they were good ones. She was at peace with God, she said. I left feeling that, at least this once, we'd learned to do it right. Douglass's story was not ending the way she ever envisioned, but it was nonetheless ending with her being able to make the choices that meant the most to her.



Two weeks later, her daughter, Susan, sent me a note. "Mom died on Friday morning. She drifted quietly to sleep and took her last breath. It was very peaceful. My dad was alone by her side with the rest of us in the living room. This was such a perfect ending and in keeping with the relationship they shared."

I am leery of suggesting the idea that endings are controllable. No one ever really has control. Physics and biology and accident ultimately have their way in our lives. But the point is that we are not helpless either. Courage is the strength to recognize both realities. We have room to act, to shape our stories, though as time goes on it is within narrower and narrower confines. A few conclusions become clear when we understand this: that our most cruel failure in how we treat the sick and the aged is the failure to recognize that they have priorities beyond merely being safe and living longer; that the chance to shape one's story is essential to sustaining meaning in life; that we have the opportunity to refashion our institutions, our culture, and our conversations in ways that transform the possibilities for the last chapters of everyone's lives.

Inevitably, the question arises of how far those possibilities should extend at the very end-whether the logic of sustaining people's autonomy and control requires helping them to accelerate their own demise when they wish to. "Assisted suicide" has become the term of art, though advocates prefer the euphemism "death with dignity." We clearly already recognize some form of this right when we allow people to refuse food or water or medications and treatments, even when the momentum of medicine fights against it. We accelerate a person's demise every time we remove someone from an artificial respirator or artificial feeding. After some resistance, cardiologists now accept that patients have the right to have their doctors turn off their pacemaker- the artificial pacing of their heart-if they want it. We also recognize the necessity of allowing doses of narcotics and sedatives that reduce pain and discomfort even if they may knowingly speed death. All proponents seek is the ability for suffering people to obtain a prescription for the same kind of medications, only this time to let them hasten the timing of their death. We are running up against the difficulty of maintaining a coherent philosophical distinction between giving people the right to stop external or artificial processes that prolong their lives and giving them the right to stop the natural, internal processes that do so.

At root, the debate is about what mistakes we fear most-the mistake of prolonging suffering or the mistake of shortening valued life. We stop the healthy from committing suicide because we recognize that their psychic suffering is often temporary. We believe that, with help, the remembering self will later see matters differently than the experiencing self-and indeed, only a minority of people saved from suicide make a repeated attempt; the vast majority eventually report being glad to be alive. But for the terminally ill who face suffering that we know will increase, only the stonehearted can be unsympathetic.

All the same, I fear what happens when we expand the terrain of medical practice to include actively assisting people with speeding their death. I am less worried about abuse of these powers than I am about dependence on them. Proponents have crafted the authority to be tightly circumscribed to avoid error and misuse. In places that allow physicians to write lethal prescriptions-countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland and states like Oregon, Washington, and Vermont-they can do so only for terminally ill adults who face unbearable suffering, who make repeated requests on separate occasions, who are certified not to be acting out of depression or other mental illness, and who have a second physician confirming they meet the criteria. Nonetheless, the larger culture invariably determines how such authority is employed. In the Netherlands, for instance, the system has existed for de cades, faced no serious opposition, and significantly grown in use. But the fact that, by 2012, one in thirty-five Dutch people sought assisted suicide at their death is not a mea sure of success. It is a measure of failure. Our ultimate goal, after all, is not a good death but a good life to the very end. The Dutch have been slower than others to develop palliative care programs that might provide for it. One reason, perhaps, is that their system of assisted death may have reinforced beliefs that reducing suffering and improving lives through other means is not feasible when one becomes debilitated or seriously ill.



Certainly, suffering at the end of life is sometimes unavoidable and unbearable, and helping people end their misery may be necessary. Given the opportunity, I would support laws to provide these kinds of prescriptions to people. About half don't even use their prescription. They are reassured just to know they have this control if they need it. But we damage entire societies if we let providing this capability divert us from improving the lives of the ill. Assisted living is far harder than assisted death, but its possibilities are far greater, as well.