posted
Do you really think people shouldn't be allowed to refuse medical treatment?
The point of Brody's recanting seemed to be the following:
quote:In hindsight, it has been very well documented that there was no medical need for Rivlin to be effectively incarcerated in a nursing home. If Rivlin had been given access to a reasonable amount of community resources, of the sort that other persons with disabilities were making use of at the time, he could have been moved out of the nursing home and probably could have had his own apartment. He could have been much more able to see friends, get outside a bit, and generally have a much more interesting and stimulating life. The reasons he gave for wanting to die were precisely how boring and meaningless life was for him.
That is too bad, indeed. There should be changes to the social support network for such people. Obviously they should be given every consideration, and all possible public funds.
But checking out of a hospital for bad reasons is not illegal, and shouldn't be.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: OK, I just figured out what this might mean: you've actually written a book, and I've (unintentionally) implied it's not accessible to the public.
Nope - for both me and Diane, "start a book" is something on the "to do" list that keeps falling to the bottom of the list...
Realistically, I know if just started plugging away at it, trying for even 100 words per day, I could do this. Unfortunately, the guy that sits down at the keyboard finds plenty of other urgent things to do instead.
If I avoid thinking about it, I avoid kicking myself for not doing it.
(It's a coping strategy, not necessarily a good one)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went looking, too, but A Cry For Help appears to be a murder mystery written in the UK. (?) Was that the one you found, too?
Although I did see mention of a "Stephen Drake" as a protagonist (clairvoyant newspaper reporter) in another mystery series. Hmmm ...
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you really think people shouldn't be allowed to refuse medical treatment?
Nope. That kind of puts words in our mouths. The point is that Rivlin wasn't offered any alternatives. Rivlin's complaints were specifically focussed on his circumstances, rather than his disability. Those circumstances could have been changed. But his "advocates" worked on helping him die to the exclusion of all else.
That's true of most of these cases.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry - the best I can offer is that I am quoted extensively in two books - and in both cases the focus was on something I organized back in 1996.
quote:Nope. That kind of puts words in our mouths. The point is that Rivlin wasn't offered any alternatives. Rivlin's complaints were specifically focussed on his circumstances, rather than his disability. Those circumstances could have been changed. But his "advocates" worked on helping him die to the exclusion of all else.
Right, so the "advocates" did wrong by him. But the result of the court case seems to be correct -- nothing in the law should ever prevent him from choosing to end treatment. Although it is surely reasonable to require that he be informed of the resources available to him before making such a decision, just as people should be told about the side effects of the drugs they take.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Right, so the "advocates" did wrong by him. But the result of the court case seems to be correct -- nothing in the law should ever prevent him from choosing to end treatment.
But the real point is that they all reinforced Rivlin's belief that death was the only way out of the things he said made life intolerable for him. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the legal arguments tended to focus on having the state allow this by focussing on the disability itself. The path that was forged was based on successfully arguing that the state's interest in protecting life is diminished in cases of severe disability.
Hey, look, it took Howard Brody over 15 years to come around.
What I can hope for here is that you can look at accounts of these cases in textbooks and wonder what important parts of the stories are being left out.
quote: Betcha knew he was going to quote you in advance, didn't you, Stephen Drake?
No, it was weird - he called me. Turns out he was a witness to the particular action and wanted to discuss it. He'd already written an article about it and was using it as a basis for a chapter in this book.
His interpretation of some of our goals is hampered by my reluctance to be totally forthcoming about our rationales behind specific strategies and tactics.
There are some things you just don't give out for free!
quote:But the real point is that they all reinforced Rivlin's belief that death was the only way out of the things he said made life intolerable for him. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the legal arguments tended to focus on having the state allow this by focussing on the disability itself. The path that was forged was based on successfully arguing that the state's interest in protecting life is diminished in cases of severe disability.
That's dumb. They should've focused on Rivlin's right to self-determination.
quote:What I can hope for here is that you can look at accounts of these cases in textbooks and wonder what important parts of the stories are being left out.
I'm sure I'll be more aware of that from now on, but I don't think the particulars of the cases will change my mind about suicide rights very much. I believe that disabled people, like everyone else, should have the right to suicide and the right to public support and entitlements when they're in need. It's foolish, as your cases show, to have suicide rights without entitlements, because that will lead to some pointless deaths. But it is also foolish to have entitlements without the right to suicide. This will lead to the infringement of people's basic freedoms.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think you're overlooking the fact that the state empowers medical professionals to deprive people of their liberty on a regular basis for attempting suicide. Not as a crime, but because they're a threat to themselves.
Labelling the shutting off of a ventilator as "treatment withdrawal" is accurate, but incomplete. Instead of acknowledging that what Rivlin did was both treatment refusal AND suicide, there's a neat legal fiction created. One in which the more complex issues associated with suicide are no longer considered relevant to address.
I've referenced Thomas Szasz before. If you want to read someone who is logical and consistent on issues of autonomy and suicide, he's the one who go to. You also won't see him referenced in bioethics texts in the sections on "assisted suicide."
Szasz doesn't think the state should be giving anyone the right to take away people's freedom unless they're a clear danger to others. And he is pretty contemptuous of the "logic" used in the pro-euthanasia movement.
I'd hope at the least you'd point out to instructors there are sides being left out. These "case studies" are being presented as accurate and complete. They're not. They're messier. It's dishonest to edit out the details that don't match the message you want to drive home.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Labelling the shutting off of a ventilator as "treatment withdrawal" is accurate, but incomplete. Instead of acknowledging that what Rivlin did was both treatment refusal AND suicide, there's a neat legal fiction created.
I might be misremembering, so tell me if I'm wrong, but I do seem to recall you yourself drawing a moral distinction between killing and allowing to die (as regards anencephalic babies).
quote:Szasz doesn't think the state should be giving anyone the right to take away people's freedom unless they're a clear danger to others. And he is pretty contemptuous of the "logic" used in the pro-euthanasia movement.
And what you think of Zsasz's point depends almost entirely on whether you believe psychiatry is legitimate as a science and a branch of medicine. If it isn't, he's right. If it is, he's wrong. I do believe psych is good science, and I don't find his arguments to the contrary persuasive, so he's not going to convince me of his politics.
As regards active euthanasia, that is an issue that you almost need to take case by case. I think it's clear that in some cases of brain death or vegetation a human body with a beating heart is no longer a person. If that's so, no one has any good reason to keep it alive.
quote:These "case studies" are being presented as accurate and complete. They're not. They're messier. It's dishonest to edit out the details that don't match the message you want to drive home.
I will definitely talk with Peter about these questions some time and see what he has to say for himself. Do you think he'd remember you personally? I know you two have debated each other a couple of times.
quote:I will definitely talk with Peter about these questions some time and see what he has to say for himself. Do you think he'd remember you personally? I know you two have debated each other a couple of times.
Des,
I'd prefer you leave my name and Hatrack out of it. What I do here is informal discussion.
Singer does know who I am - I don't call him "Peter" - he attempted the first name basis at one point, realized I wasn't going to reciprocate, so he doesn't refer to me as "Steve" or "Stephen," either.
Singer heard a lot of what I said in January.
Our exchanges have consisted of a couple of email exchanges when he briefly came onto a spina bifida list to correct any misimpressions about him (if there were any, they weren't coming from me) and then left. Rude and presumptuous. This was shortly before he came to the U.S.
The next time was on a radio show. I'll have to dig, but it's still archived and listenable somewhere.
The third and last exchange was at a school here in Chicago.
Be patient, though. There should be an interesting article coming out fairly soon that has some stuff between me and Singer.
And, yeah, I call him dishonest again. I give examples.
Tonight, btw, there are probably some people in Vermont doing the same thing.
*shrug*
It's obvious that we're not going to get past your irrational belief that nondisabled people who want to commit suicide are mentally ill and some people who are old, ill or disabled are making very reasonable and rational choices. There are a lot of unquestioned assumptions holding that belief system up and it probably won't change much in a short time.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd prefer you leave my name and Hatrack out of it. What I do here is informal discussion.
Sorry, it was thoughtless of me not to ask whether you preferred it that way. Of course I'll do as you ask.
quote:It's obvious that we're not going to get past your irrational belief that nondisabled people who want to commit suicide are mentally ill and some people who are old, ill or disabled are making very reasonable and rational choices.
You're presuming a bit here. I do think there are (perhaps many) situations in which a non-disabled person can rationally desire to die. I also think it is quite possible for a disabled person to be depressed or otherwise mentally ill, and therefore incapable of making decisions. Probably this varies from person to person -- some people (like yourself, surely) are made of sterner stuff than others and are more able to bear extraordinary burdens.
But I have good evidence that people can and do rationally desire to die when they become terribly ill. I am the executor of my parents' living will. They've told me that if they are ever in a permanent vegetative state or the like, they want to die. People make this sort of choice all the time -- telling themselves and others that, were their quality of life to fall below a certain point, they would be glad to pass on. They make decisions like this at times when they are not depressed. The pain is not immediate, so it can't influence the decision. These choices can be rational.
They can also be irrational, so I see where slippery slope problems come into the equation. I can understand why you want the law to give life the benefit of the doubt. What I'm asking you to acknowledge is that life can, in rare cases, be a burden and that sometimes a respirating human body is not a human being. What we should do about this legally is a further question, but if we can't agree on the moral underpinnings that law should have, we can't even begin to debate the law.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I hope I've been able to make clear that, despite the fact that I defend some of Peter Singer's views here, I do have some very serious disagreements with him. He's obviously very radical. I can't tell you how much I disagree with his opinions on infanticide and animal rights. And when I do agree with him, I'm almost always motivated by different reasons -- personal liberty, rather than utilitarianism.
Obviously you also have a pretty low opinion of him as a person. I wish I could answer that adequately, but really I can't. It could very well be that he shows a different face to his scholarly colleagues than to the rest of the world. People have different sides to their personalities.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or it could be that Steven hears what he is saying from a completely different viewpoint, as someone who wouldn't be alive if Singer's views were adopted as mainstream policy.
Here is an example....you are in an Ethics class and the professor begins talking about sexual morals. The conversation is cool, calm, detached, and impersonal.
Then he calls your mother a whore. (not yours in particular... ...anyone's family, so to speak..)
The same standards apply to everyone, but one is distanced from your reality, so while it seems impartial and detached, it really isn't....
Because these differences affect real people, in real life situations.
It becomes personal....and what MAY have seemed logical when talking about people with no real identity to you suddenly affects you, or your family...well, then it matters more, because those people have a face and identity that wasn't being addressed before.
It matters, because it touches your life, where before it was merely an academic exercise.
If you were in Stevens place, I don't think it would matter how politely he said you should never have been allowed to live, it would still be a horrible thing for him to say.
posted
Except if it's true, or at least logically follows from what we think is true, and if it is on a matter as important as this one, it SHOULD be said, regardless of whether people will feel personally angry at it. If people did not speak out when their reasoning might anger many on a personal level, there'd be many wrongful ideas that would have never been refuted - like racism to take a recent and extremely important example in American history. You might get mad if your professor's theory entails your mom being a whore, but you really shouldn't - or at least you shouldn't expect the professor to stop professing his theory, because to him it is true, and thus is something that needs to be shared.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Kwea was saying views that might anger somebody shouldn't be spoken. I think he's saying that the couching of something in hypothetical, logical terms does not magically wipe away the implications that philosophy has on real people.
In other words, the message "You have no right to live" cannot be separated from "X people have no right to live" if you happen to be a member of group X, or care about whether group X lives.
To take it a step further, when Singer manipulates the specifics of real situations to fit his lovely hypotheticals (which I'm taking Steve's word on), he's attempting to further disguise the real-world consequences of his reccomended course of action.
posted
But by the same token, the practical effects from a certain line of reasoning on you individually do not negate the reasoning. Or, in other words, just because a conclusion says your mom is a whore or something you don't like does not mean that line of reasoning is false.
Kwea said Singer's statement would be a horrible thing to say to someone who it actually impacts. My point is that, although that person might recieve it as something horrible, that does not mean it necessarily IS horrible.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Kwea is saying this to someone who disagrees with some of Singer's philosophies and thinks we can take the good without taking the bad.
Assuming the philosophies Destineer disagrees with are the same ones that impact an individual, Kwea's point was that the harm caused by those incorrect (from Destineer's perspective) philosophies is much greater than he thought.
I find that several of the more persuasive posts here are taking a very practiced approach to rationalize a belief system. Nothing wrong with that, but I encourage all that do to be sure that is well stated in preface to empirical presentations.
As part of individualism, if capable, I will determine my own disposition and I expect my legally correct orders to be carried out - regardless of my reasons for my choices. I also leave those wishes and desires in writing. I have not been, nor will be, a long term, nonfunctioning burden to my family or society. With long term life prospects with a functioning brain and even rudimentary communication capabilities I cannot imagine the situation where I would not be considered a contibuting individual - I would not request my life be terminated regardless of physical disabilities.
However - dibilitating pain with no easing possible and dire near term possibilities - you bet, I believe I have the right to make that choice (regardless of the possibility of miracles). Brain dead or progressive vegetative state? - that is where my written instructions apply.
I had a hard time being sure with the writings, but I wanted to be clear that some of us are very much in favor of the individuals right to choose.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stepping back from "your mother is a whore" analogies, I want to offer something a little closer to what I'm trying to get at.
(And probably annoy just about everyone in the process - albeit for different reasons.)
In another thread, I made mention of recent poll numbers that indicated that 40% of the American public believed Saddam Hussein had a direct role in 9/11. (It might be different now, an exasperated GWB had to admit during the first debate that he knew it was Al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11).
Where did those poll numbers come from? Well, it was pretty simple. Administration figures appeared time after time using "Saddam," "Al-Qaeda," and "9/11" in public statements - sometimes in the same sentence.
Never let it be said the American public can't take a hint.
How about building the case for Iraq? It's clear now that the administration had a conflicting array of information and consistently picked that information that was most suggestive that Iraq was a threat. We know now that this was not the case. That doesn't mean that maybe there wasn't a case to be made for invading Iraq, but the administration found it necessary to stack the deck in presenting the case to the public (and they may have done this with all sincerity). That worked, too. The public supported the invasion. As more complete information has come out, support has softened, especially with the feelings that people were misled.
So where am I going here? Whether it's Peter Singer or George Bush, I oppose building a case on public policy - especially involving life and death - dealing with incomplete, shaded or distorted information.
Interesting coincidence pointed out by Singer himself - he and Bush were born on the same day, same year. I see more similarities between the two in their way of making their cases than either one would admit to.
It's not just Singer, though. That would be grossly unfair. He really is just the tip of the iceberg. There's been a ton of money spent by "right to die" groups over the years using the very same methods. Advertising works.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
