Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Welcome to the Hotel Euthanasia
With the words, “In the end, I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death. I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others,” Governor Brown of California signed into law provisions that will allow terminally ill patients to kill themselves with the assistance of a physician.
There is so much wrong here it is hard to know where to begin.
Most importantly, the arguments in favor of physician-assisted killing use rights language to place a heavy thumb on the scale balancing personal interests with community and social good in favor of the needs of a handful of individuals. In doing this real harm is done to society and thousands of vulnerable citizens are put in harm’s way.
One need only to look briefly at the recent videotapes from Planned Parenthood to realize, regardless of one’s position on abortion, that a high level of coarseness about the value of human life can become endemic when the struggle with moral implications of terminating a potential life have ceased. The same callousness, over time, will now be ushered in at the end of life with the enactment of a law that allows this type of killing.
The CDC reports that in 2008, one in 10 elders had reported emotional, physical, or sexual mistreatment, or potential neglect, in that year. In a society that does such a poor job of protecting its vulnerable, it is naive to think that even the protections embedded in the California law will be sufficient to prevent coercion and misuse of assisted death. The idea that the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and the socially isolated will have their agency protected to freely choose not to suicide is fantasy – California dreaming on a grand scale.
The emotions experienced when a terminal diagnosis is made are complex, variable, and confusing. Fear often becomes a predominant emotion, and this, by definition, makes the terminally ill vulnerable, easily exploited, and subject to pressure from family or other interested parties – including the state. If one believes for a second that the medical profession can be trusted to be effective watchdogs over all of this, I suggest revisiting the Planned Parenthood videos.
Contemporary palliative medicine and hospice care can, with very rare exceptions, manage pain and suffering associated with impending death. Fears can be relieved and dignity of the dying supported, with compassionate interventions by doctors, nurses (especially nurses), social workers, psychologists and spiritual counsellors.
What is needed is assistance to the dying that protects their dignity and mitigates their fears in the form of more and better palliative and hospice care – not assisted dying in the form of active killing.
Published in General, Healthcare, Law, Science & Technology
I couldn’t care less about assisted suicide, but care very deeply when others insert their nose into individual’s business for those same individual’s own good.
Whether I agree with assisted suicide isn’t the point.
I am wise enough to know that anytime we want the state involved in individual matters we lose individual liberty.
You have no reasonable concerns about how someone else elects their end of life care.
BrentB67: ok, so there is no such thing as a reasonable concern about assisted suicide. Do you really believe that large numbers of Americans-possibly a majority-are just busybodies who want to control other people?
28 percent busybodies to 68 freedom lovers percent is far from a majority of people that want to interject their personal moral values into somebodies life decision.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183425/support-doctor-assisted-suicide.aspx
A substantial number, each with their own hobbyhorse.
Yes, absolutely.
It is fine to be concerned about assisted suicide. I’ve followed the debates from a curiosity perspective. Your concerns are valid.
Where we differ is you think it is the proper role of the state to address your concerns.
What if someone comes along and has a concern about how you raise children and wants the state to address those concerns and CPS comes and takes your children? An extreme example, but not unthinkable, and something I don’t wish for.
We have built a leviathan medical payment program in this nation and now we are shocked to find out that there are unintended consequences of doing so. Consequences that may include state actors leveraging an assisted suicide law to pre-emptively end lives that may be expensive to care for or are not tax producing.
That is a like feigning shock that there is prostitution occurring in Nevada brothels.
Too many folks on the right endorse and support these supposedly compassionate medical welfare programs when in reality those programs are soft tyranny that will ultimately rule us all. We would all be better off keeping our money and buying the insurance and care we can afford and choose freely.
Ask a poll question about how many support Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc. I bet it is 90%+
Every person paying taxes and agreeing to raise the national debt to fund these tyrannical programs is necessarily a busy body, even if they are indirectly a busy body.
It is easy to check a block and support individual freedom. In reality, very few people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and care for themselves.
My broader point is about the unintentional busy bodies.
Oh–even better! There should be several people making that trip every day!
Good point.
BrentB67: yes, we do disagree on the proper role of the state. I am not on principle against CPs; if a child is being abused, what is the alternative?
Judith, the problem with your question in #100 is who determines a child is being abused or neglected and should be taken from parents. The people responsible for doing so depend on the abuse cases for their jobs and hence have a perverse incentive for finding abuse and taking children. Every time we trust the state to do anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution we generate unintended consequences.
BrentB67: I understand your concerns, but what is the alternative to CPS? Do we simply turn a blind eye to child abuse? How would you handle it?
I think this is excellent question. I’m squeamish about giving government the right/duty to step in, but whats the workable alternative?
Brent, my son is a social worker and I can assure you that they do not want to take children away from people. Trust me, there are plenty of cases to keep them busy forever. They want to resolve things so that people can get on with their lives. But oh my, the sad, sad things he has seen. I suppose his business could be privatized, but really, I think that is a valid function of the state. I would agree with you about medicare, but child welfare is a whole different matter. There might be a few social workers who are overzealous about taking kids away, but that is not the norm.
Judith and Merina, I noted in the comment that I used the CPS example as hyperbole to make a point.
Both of you make sound arguments about why CPS exists.
My point of using that extreme example is because I can tell from your comments that you are generous and caring souls. I know Merina is a proud Mother and Judith I will assume the same of you.
The point of the hyperbole was to emphasize that often we create agencies with the best intentions and then end up surprised when the institutions are turned against us. What frustrates me is we mostly refuse to learn our lesson.
We in the USA are masterful at enslaving ourselves in our own good intentions.
Brent, I understand your point, but I don’t necessarily think there is a direct connection between calls for euthanasia and medicare. Conservative states aren’t temped to make euthanasia legal. Or if there is a connection, it is just that the left in general thinks it can control everything, including life, death, and of course, as much as possible in between. That is terrible, but I am not a libertarian, and I think that since people are social animals and influence one another a great deal, we can’t just pretend that this isn’t so and think we can just legalize everything and all will be hunky dory because everyone will just be independent and do what they want. That’s a very naive thing to think. Euthansia is next door to murder, sometimes is murder, and so it is perfectly legitimate to control it. If people want to commit suicide, then we can’t stop them, but we don’t help them either. As I said over on the other thread, the more difficult question is when someone is terminally ill. Then if a doctor or nurse eases dying, I’m OK with that, but that is no reason to legalize euthanasia. Administering meds is not an exact science especially for a weakened body. That’s a whole different matter.