quote:All last week, proponents of the right to die were trotted out on radio and television shows across the country and were frequently described as "experts."
Their warped soapbox -- built mostly on lies -- was quickly re-erected when it was discovered that on Sept. 25, a 59-year-old Montreal mother called police when her son died.
The mother admitted that she had helped kill her 36-year-old son -- because he was in pain from multiple sclerosis.
This story about a mother's so-called "compassion" for her suffering son has re-energized this dangerous cause.
If these so-called "experts" were really honest and really did their homework, they would discover that in countries or regions that have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide, what inevitably ends up happening is the "right to die" very quickly turns into the "duty to die" and very often into murder.
What's utterly maddening to me when people spout off about this topic is how little most know about its realities.
I now ask everybody who says they are in favour of these murderous practices if they have ever researched the facts surrounding it.
Not surprisingly, most have not. I heard one of these so-called experts on the radio this past week scoff when someone arguing against it said even with strict guidelines, the slippery slope very quickly becomes a treacherous cliff.
Read on and consider if the following is just a gentle slippery incline or an icy cliff.
How extraordinary. A mainline newspaper carrying an argument against "compassionate homicide." And not because someone complained, but simply because the columnist felt that is is wrong. I just wish the column had wider audience.
She traces the history of Dutch and Netherlans legal euthanasia to the practice of involuntary euthanasia, to prescribed infanticide for disabled infants (parental consent not necessary).
Colour me impressed.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
That said, the "what inevitably ends up happening is the "right to die" very quickly turns into the "duty to die" and very often into murder" part of it caught my intention.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a topic close to my heart. I've had some very bad times and what got me through them was knowing that it push came to shove I could die and get out of them. If I for some reason were to become very, very damaged physically or mentally, I would want to die. There are worse things and frankly I don't want to experience them, or force people I care about to have to deal with all the things that come with keeping someone alive for whom life has nothing.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big problem with the topic is that it's conflated into "right to die" as if there's only two possible gradiations of this.
For example, one of the turning points of Dogma is that God is somehow being kept alive by a ventilator, and this is inherently bad. So when the hero pulls the plug, the day is saved, a clear indication they consider this the right thing to do. And a nice little attack on those silly Catholics who want to keep everyone alive, even when it's clear they're better off dead.
What's utterly unadressed is that there's no indiciation anyone could have had that this person wanted to die - he came in unconscious and unknown to anyone in the hospital. It's clear that's what sought isn't the "right to die" but rather the right of somebody to decide if a patient should die.
The problem I have with a slippery slope argument is that it concedes ground that does not need to be conceded, and buys into this two-level distinction.
posted
Of course it's not clear - but this is the unquestioned, unstated assumption in the "right to die" case, that it will be "clear." It's the big weakness in the whole idea.
posted
Talk about hitting the ground running on a Monday! Spent the first part of my day discussing a protest at a highly promoted lecture by Singer at a university scheduled for Deaf and Disability Awareness Week. Maybe they'll invite David Duke or Charles Murray (coautor of "The Bell Curve" in during their diversity celebrations.)
Frankly, I'm not sure the author of the article has all her facts straight - we'll probably find out within a few days. On the unlevel playing field that is the euthanasia debate, proponents rarely get challenged, no matter how outrageous their claims. The same rules don't apply to those who oppose legalized euthanasia.
Found an interesting snippet that demonstrates the complete breakdown in logic that is so evident in the discourse. And a lot of it is done by bioethicists - don't they get any training in logic?
In a Toronto paper, after discussing this case, involving a guy with MS, and the murder of Tracy Latimer (she had cerebral palsy) there's this quote:
quote:Trudo Lemmens, an assistant professor in the law faculty at the Centre for Bioethics at the University of Toronto, told globeandmail.com that cases of this nature come up fairly frequently, not only in Canada but around the world. "I think it certainly highlights the need for appropriate end-of-life care."
End-of-life care????? Did I miss something? Fariala didn't have a terminal condition. Tracy Latimer didn't have a terminal condition. Where does this come from?
Princess Leah,
I don't see your own concerns as relevant to the euthanasia policy discussion. NOTHING that is on the board in North America would make it easier for nondisabled people to kill themselves. Even in the Netherlands, where they are expanding who "qualifies" for assistance, the doctors are still the arbiters and gatekeepers for deciding what is reasonable and who gets the magic sleepy-byebye drugs. So, in the end, the group of people whose autonomy is most enhanced by legalized euthanasia is doctors.
If it was really about autonomy, then anyone who was serious about wanting to kill themselves would get that assistance. Not just the old, ill, disabled, expensive and annoying (Sooner or later, I expect to be all of these.).
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:End-of-life care????? Did I miss something? Fariala didn't have a terminal condition. Tracy Latimer didn't have a terminal condition. Where does this come from?
I think the person meant it was "end-of-life care" as in sort of care that would end the lives of the people in question.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I am not advocating the killing of those like Tracy Latimer, who are either incapable, or do not consent to their own death, I do believe that euthanasia should be legal. I was very involved in a debate about this a few months ago. What the debate finally boiled down to was a difference that was for all intents and purposes irreconcilable. I believe that wanting to die does not automatically invalidate one's cognitive faculties. In other words, I belive it is possible to rationally decide to end one's life. I know many on this board don't agree.
This seemingly irreconcilable difference is the core of the problem, I'm afraid.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
It's a topic near to my own heart, knwoing more than a couple people who would be directly affected by this. I just don't have the long perspective that sndrake has - just annoyance and trying to learn more.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that wanting to die does not automatically invalidate one's cognitive faculties. In other words, I belive it is possible to rationally decide to end one's life. I know many on this board don't agree.
Chaeron,
if you've read my postings then maybe you're aware that the argument you're advancing doesn't address my critique - or the critique of the disaibility rights community - at all.
The question isn't one of whether or not suicide can be rational or not. The issue (simply put) is that when the state sanctions assistance for certain people based on their health status while seeking to prevent the suicides of others, it's engaging in a policy based in discrimination and bigotry.
How many times can I say this?
If it was really about the autonomy of the individual, then anyone who wanted assistance could get it.
If there are gatekeepers to the magic drugs, it's the gatekeepers who are empowered.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the core of the problem is much more basic than that. "Right to die" advocates seldom are happy to leave it at "positive steps to end a life may be taken at the fully informed request of a competent individual." Underlying the position is a very clear assumption that some lives are not worth living. Further, the costs to those other than the patient are more often talked about than the what's good for the patient.
Further, few who oppose euthanesia "believe that wanting to die automatically invalidate one's cognitive faculties." Few people oppose voluntary decisions to refuse treatment, although there is much dispute as to what constitutes a voluntary decision on the subject. For example, I've never met anyone who thinks a cancer patient facing their third round of chemo with a 99% chance of dying within 6 months should not be allowed to refuse treatment, although I'm sure such people exist.
The problems many anti-euthanesia people see are:
1) Are doctors capable of giving the unbiased information necessary to allow a fully-informed, voluntary decision? 2) How are decisions made absent clear direction from the patient? 3) Is undue pressure placed on patients to consent to cessation of treatment, either by doctors or family members? 4) Can people truly make the decision prior to facing it? The quality of life of disabled persons is radically underestimated by both doctors and "healthy" people. 5) What effect does the availability of euthanesia have on the avialability of other treatment? 6) What effect does the availability and advocacy for life-termination have on the perceived worth of individuals?
In short, the belief that wanting to die does not automatically invalidate one's cognitive faculties is simply one of many serious and difficult ethical issues to consider when discussing euthanesia.
quote:The issue (simply put) is that when the state sanctions assistance for certain people based on their health status while seeking to prevent the suicides of others, it's engaging in a policy based in discrimination and bigotry.
Well, yes, but is that discrimination a bad thing?
I mean, the government discriminates nearly constantly. To take a very basic example, it gives medicines to people with certain diseases that it would deny to other people who don't have those diseases. This is, in fact, discrimination against people who don't have the diseases in question - but it is a good discrimination because it would be dangerous for people who aren't sick to take treatments designed for people who ARE sick.
Similarly, what's wrong with saying certain people (whose diseases supposedly merit suicide) can have suicide while saying those without diseases that merit suicide cannot have it. Isn't this a justified discriminatory policy? Why would you want to prescribe death as a cure for people who don't need it any more than you'd want to prescribe ridlin to kids who don't need it?
It's the government's job to discriminate in this way, particularly when it comes to medicine - based on the simple fact that not all treatments are appropriate for anyone who could concievablely think they need it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that such a policy carries with it the inherent philosophy that some lives aren't worth living, which quickly translates into some people's lives aren't as valuable as other people's lives based on their ability to walk/talk/move their arms/etc.
It's one reason I'm fairly comfortable with allowing very clearly requested, fully informed withholding of medical treatment. In that case, we don't have to decide what lives are worth living. The medical facts of the case make that decision for us.
There's always the danger of ill-informed consent, and of pressure or misreading of the patient's wishes. These dangers require serious safeguards. But it avoids the relative valuing of life.
quote:Well, yes, but is that discrimination a bad thing?
Well, considering that suicide was declared a "national health crisis" several years ago by Clinton's surgeon general, yes. There are no overwhelming numbers of old, ill or disabled people clamoring to kill themselves. They remain the exception, in the same way that nondisabled people who want to kill themselves are the exceptions. Carving out that exception isn't based on anything objective, but a subjective judgement that these lives are of lesser worth than the lives on nondisabled suicidal people.
quote: I mean, the government discriminates nearly constantly. To take a very basic example, it gives medicines to people with certain diseases that it would deny to other people who don't have those diseases. This is, in fact, discrimination against people who don't have the diseases in question - but it is a good discrimination because it would be dangerous for people who aren't sick to take treatments designed for people who ARE sick.
This is a typical huge logic jump in euthanasia advocacy. The outcome for anyone who takes a lethal dose of medication is the same - death. This is really ludicrous, but fairly commonly used in arguments for euthanasia and assisted suicide.
quote: Similarly, what's wrong with saying certain people (whose diseases supposedly merit suicide) can have suicide while saying those without diseases that merit suicide cannot have it. Isn't this a justified discriminatory policy? Why would you want to prescribe death as a cure for people who don't need it any more than you'd want to prescribe ridlin to kids who don't need it?
More of the same here, although you've gone to using "those whose diseases merit suicide" without justifying what constitutes "merit."
quote: It's the government's job to discriminate in this way, particularly when it comes to medicine - based on the simple fact that not all treatments are appropriate for anyone who could concievablely think they need it.
Really, Tres, if the core issue is suicide, there are people who spend years or even decades struggling with the wish to kill themselves. While I'm not supporting this as policy, there is more of a case to be made for someone who has been struggling with suicidal feelings for 20 years getting assistance than for disabled people.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake, I was wondering if you read Leonard Pitts's column on the Schiavo case, and if your organization was considering writing him about it. If so, I'd be curious to follow the exchange.
quote: Is it too much to hope Terri Schiavo will finally be allowed to die in peace?
If the doctors supporting the decision to yank nutrition are right about her condition, then she’s no less peaceful than if she were dead, right?
quote: We hear a lot of bloviating about the sanctity of marriage these days, but if that phrase means anything, it means this: The person you love enough and trust enough to join in legal union is empowered to make decisions on your behalf if you are unable to make them yourself. This person speaks for you when you cannot speak for yourself.
That's a sacred obligation and it ought not be violated even by parents, much less government, absent compelling evidence of a spouse's malfeasance or incompetence. We've seen no such evidence where Michael Schiavo is concerned.
Yes, he entered into a relationship with another woman after his wife became ill. That proves not malfeasance but humanity.
It’s not a question of malfeasance but of whether the pure motivation of looking out for the best interests of a spouse can be assumed given that his loyalties are no longer pure and undivided. The legal reasoning behind the spouse speaking for a patient is that the spouse has no loyalty to anyone else. Not the case any more.
quote: There is a galling hypocrisy here, after all. Meaning the alacrity with which some conservatives -- underline some -- jettison the conservative credo that government should interfere as little as possible in the lives and decisions of the people. Oh, they are perfectly willing to make that argument so long as we're only talking about government regulation some captain of industry finds onerous. But let an individual make a difficult personal decision with which those same conservatives disagree, and they suddenly become as intrusive and regulation-minded as the most liberal liberal.
But the whole issue is whether or not this is a decision made by the person who will suffer the greatest effect from it. Question-begging at its finest. If she didn’t make this decision, then the government is actually preventing someone else from interfering in her own decisions.
quote:Carving out that exception isn't based on anything objective, but a subjective judgement that these lives are of lesser worth than the lives on nondisabled suicidal people.
Well, that depends on how you are defining objective. Wouldn't you say a semi-certain lifetime of pain is not something that the government might have an objective reason to encourage people to avoid?
If not, there are countless other things the government passes judgement on that could be considered similarly subjective.
quote:While I'm not supporting this as policy, there is more of a case to be made for someone who has been struggling with suicidal feelings for 20 years getting assistance than for disabled people.
You say this, but the majority of Americans don't seem to be very convinced by that case - they are more convinced of the case for suicide being okay in cases of disease. I think the idea may be that wanting to die does not correlate to suicide being a good idea.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If she didn’t make this decision, then the government is actually preventing someone else from interfering in her own decisions.
But if the government bans the proceedure, then it's still someone else making the decision - it's the government deciding for the patient.
The only difference is that when doctors get input, SOME patients have a choice (the ones who doctors think need the choice), whereas when the government bans it outright ALL patients have no choice.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, that depends on how you are defining objective. Wouldn't you say a semi-certain lifetime of pain is not something that the government might have an objective reason to encourage people to avoid?
Would you at least try to do a little research to find out if any of this stuff holds up at all?
Reports from Oregon and studies of the people who went to Kevorkian both have found pain to be pretty low on the reasons for people seeking assisted suicide.
Or don't you think factual accuracy should play any part of the debate?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, you're responding to my line you quoted as if it's a response to your discrimination argument. It's not, it's a response to a rather ill-informed article about a specific case which is NOT a "right-to-die" case.
quote:You say this, but the majority of Americans don't seem to be very convinced by that case - they are more convinced of the case for suicide being okay in cases of disease.
PR works, Tres. Remember, polls indicate 40% of the American public believe Saddam had a direct hand in 9/11. It used to be a majority.
You really want to use polls as a basis for policy?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: sndrake, I was wondering if you read Leonard Pitts's column on the Schiavo case, and if your organization was considering writing him about it. If so, I'd be curious to follow the exchange.
Icarus,
sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. I'll try to add this to my "to do" pile for tomorrow.
The fact is I'm very discouraged about making any headway with Pitts. The Florida media has been almost singleminded in omitting any mention of disability groups getting involved in this case, let alone our perspective. Even in the last round, at the Florida oral arguments, the initial AP story was written in a way that made it sound like Not Dead Yet was the ONLY disability group to file in support of saving Terri Schiavo's life. And that was after being strongarmed.
The coverage got a little better when representatives from the Arc, TASH and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association called to complain about the misrepresentation in the AP article.
We've called the press, issued press releases, had major disability groups sign onto court filings and still get ignored. At this point I have to include the omissions are deliberate rather than simple ignorance.
My best guess is that the press decided what "the story" is and we mess up the story they have learned to tell so well.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To come back and try to restate better what I tried to say before, I want to be sure of my right to die IN THE EVENT of an accident that leaves me unable to communicate. What if I were conscious? That would be hell. So I want to secure my rights to the machines being turned off.
Not as a policy, but if the patient has specified it. We have an organ donor icon-thingy on our driver's liscences; why not a "turn me off" icon? It's only fair.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before you commit to that, you need to figure out how to specify under what conditions you want to allow cessation of treatment, and what treatments you want discontinued. For example, many people who might wish to come off a ventilator do not want to be starved/dehydrated to death by having nutrition removed. Also, if you blatantly state "no ventilators" you won't get them even when they're temporary - so you need to learn about defintions of different states, and the controversies that exist about their definitions.
It's not something that can be specified on a license.
quote:To come back and try to restate better what I tried to say before, I want to be sure of my right to die IN THE EVENT of an accident that leaves me unable to communicate. What if I were conscious? That would be hell. So I want to secure my rights to the machines being turned off.
As has been noted elsewhere, you already have that right. All you have to do is file some paperwork, but think it over very carefully. Also think about appointing someone to have the ability to make decisions for you if you cannot communicate - someone you trust will make the decisions you yourself would make.
Thing is, there is little evidence that a majority of people with "locked in" syndrome don't end up wanting to die - but the ones who do end up getting a lot of attention. There was an interesting news article published a few months ago about that.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
