Euphemisms R Us
The venerable political columnist John Leo has weighed in on a favorite pet peeve of mine; the ubiquitous use of euphemisms rather than accurate descriptive language to describe facts or actions that are controversial or disturbing.
He speaks of euphemisms used in areas as far ranging as plane crashes, the death penalty, and torture. The following is Leo's take on a few of the issues of concern to Secondhand Smoke:
"Just as 'abortion' has virtually disappeared from the names and language of abortion-rights groups, the word 'embryo' is fading from the vocabulary of those who favor 'embryonic stem-cell research.' Since polls show that the public reacts negatively to the news that minute human embryos are created and destroyed in the research, the media now speak of 'early stem cells.' The troubling word 'cloning' is fading too; 'therapeutic cloning' is replaced by its technical term, 'somatic cell nuclear transfer.'"
Leo could have added that euthanasia advocates now routinely use gooey euphemisms for acts of mercy killing, which almost 100 years ago was given the (then) euphemistic word euthanasia--which before it was co-opted by supporters of mercy killing originally meant a good and peaceful natural death surrounded by family. So, now euthanasia societies no longer use the word euthanasia. It is all "compassion and choices" or "choice in dying." The acts of killing are now called "aid in dying," or "death with dignity." It all gets increasingly ridiculous.
As I have oft said, beware of social movements that use euphemisms to progress their agendas. It means that they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:14 PM
19 Comments
19 Comments:
Mr Smith, I find your usage of euphemisms and exhaltation of palliative to be hypocritical, and worse than what you accuse your opponents of presenting.
You present palliative care as the be-all and end-all solution to terminal and chronic pain. However, you don't address the facts and statistics. Countries with legalized euthanasia, such as The Netherlands, have exemplary levels of palliative care that transcend what is offered in the United States. The example of Oregon, the sole state where assisted suicide is allowed, has shown a marked increase in the level of pain relief for the sick and elderly.
Tragically, your opposition to euthanasia leads to more pain and suffering for the terminally ill, which in turn leads to more support for euthanasia. Palliative care is far from perfect today, and it is unlikely to alleviate all pain for all patients. Most practice euthanasia 'under the radar', by calling it 'terminal sedation', sedating the patient into a coma for weeks until they die. Frequently, they'll awaken several times in excrutiating pain. Not surprisingly, they'll do this without consulting the patient, so your ideology removes more autonomy. Thusly, the patient is either condemned to a death with insufficient pain relief, or a prolonged comatose state without any choices at all.
Then there's the case of Terri Schiavo. You also opposes the removal of patients from life support. This is nonsensical - Terri's wishes were well-known among her husband and many friends. Surely people are entitled to end treatment they no longer want. If we let doctors decide what treatment is 'best' for the patient, people will lose trust in the medical profession. Surely the one on the receiving end of painful and often futile treatment should be allowed some say in whether they undergo and/or continue some treatment. Indeed, I would say that their wishes should trump those of their doctors. Surely we do not want cancer sufferers to ignore their symptoms and avoid doctors out of fear.
In addition to this, many resources and a great deal of manpower was wasted keeping Terri alive for years after no improvement was reached and Michael, her legal guardian, decided to remove her from life support. Many lives could be saved and improved if nurses did not spend years taking care of a vegetable that could not respond, had no conscious mind and no hope of recovery, as the autopsy proved.
In the end, we all own our own lives. You would like to choose to live for himself. What you don't have the right to do is to make that choice for all of us and demand that we live on your terms.
Sorry pal, but you are wrong, dead wrong, if you will pardon the pun. The Netherlands is not good at palliative care and indeed, has a very stunted hospice system. Nor do I oppose the removal of patients from life support, when that is their choice. Indeed, I have been a hospice volunteer which advocates not extending life, but not shortening it either. You know little about Schiavo since her friends testified contrary to her husband, who had personal and financial conflicts of interest. Your denigration of people as mere cucumbers tells me a lot.
Next time you comment, get your facts straight. Thanks for your post.
"Some of these deaths are the classic cases cited by right-to-die advocates: A terminally ill patient, in agony, demanding to "die with dignity." But many are not. An estimated 5,981 people--an average of 16 per day--were killed by their doctors without their consent, according to the Dutch government report."
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000390
I assume this is considered "palliative care" in the Netherlands.
I believe that figure is from the Remmelink Report. Some were lethal injections and some intentional overdoses of pain meds. It does not include deaths caused as an unintended side effect of legitimate pain treatment, which can also happen.
"Sorry pal, but you are wrong, dead wrong, if you will pardon the pun. The Netherlands is not good at palliative care and indeed, has a very stunted hospice system."
Interesting. Numerous studies and reports show that pain relief is of a poor quality when doctors are afraid of being prosecuted. This is because adequate levels of pain relief do in fact shorten life, and this is quite often indistinguishable from a single lethal injection.
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/news/news/rockymountainnews.01.17.06.asp
Here is some information on terminal sedation - http://www.deathwithdignity.org/news/news/srj.12.06.04.asp
You also neglected to address Oregon's improvement in palliative care after allowing assisted suicide.
"Nor do I oppose the removal of patients from life support, when that is their choice. Indeed, I have been a hospice volunteer which advocates not extending life, but not shortening it either."
So why shouldn't they be able to get a lethal dose of drugs at their request? Oh yeah, you don't REALLY think that people own their own lives.
All you're really encouraging is for the terminally ill to go to Switzerland to get help to die - http://www.deathwithdignity.org/news/news/bostonglobe.02.27.06.asp
If someone has Motor Neurone disease and can receive assistance to die once they can no longer move their arms, they'll live longer. If they can't get help, chances are that they will commit suicide while they are still able. Do you really want them to die sooner?
Here is some information about palliative care in the Netherlands:
http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/palliative_care/default.asp
http://www.minvws.nl/images/palliative_eng_tcm11-45291.pdf
Palliative care works best in conjuction with patient choice. They have just as much a right to euthanasis if they do not wish to undergo palliative care. Why do we treat our pets more humanely than fellow human beings?
Also, Wesley, you want the right to choose just as much as I do. Your choice is just going to be different, and that's fine. I don't want you forcing me to live by your beliefs, however.
Assisted suicide is a matter of public policy, not someone imposing their beliefs on others. Society (so far) has realized that allowing private killing and assisted suicide would jeopardize and abandon those most in need of compassion and support. Add in the $ factor, and real trouble will brew.
Oregon isn't the only state that has improved its end of life care. So has Rhode Island, as one example. Particularly after it outlawed assisted suicide but ensured that doctors felt comfortable aggressively treating pain.
Finally, assisted suicide is a corruption of medicine.
I could write a book on why this isn't just "choice." In fact, I have written two.
You're being inconsistent again. If assisted suicide is a corruption of medicine, then so is suicide by starvation or removing a respirator/life support. Sadly, they are the only options for the terminally ill at present. Why do we treat sick pets with more humanity and compassion?
You're being inconsistent again. If assisted suicide is a corruption of medicine, then so is suicide by starvation or removing a respirator/life support. Sadly, they are the only options for the terminally ill at present. Why do we treat sick pets with more humanity and compassion?
Removing unwanted life support is not killing. We euthanize animals for many reasons, such as incontinence, because we don't want to pay for expensive care, because they are abandoned. We don't treat people like animals.
So the patient doesn't get to choose a painless death, but vets and doctors can get easy access to lethal drugs like Nembutal. How convenient.
Here is some more discussion on Terri Schiavo that I started: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=138932
BTW, please stop dodging the issue. How is suicide by removing a respirator different from suicide via a lethal injection, other than how long it takes?
One other thing regarding euthanising pets - owners who don't usually get arrested and charged for cruelty to animals. Ironic, given how poorly we treat the terminally and incurably ill.
I am not dodging the issue. You are apparently ignorant of the history of this issue. Suicide is killing. That is, the death is caused by some artificial means, e.g., overdose, bullet in the brain, etc. If one dies by removing life support, death is natural. Huge difference.
The Supreme Court ruled that way in 1997, 9-0. Vacco v. Quill. You ought to read the opinion and learn why they are fundamentally different in law and ethics.
Thanks for your conversation.
Actually, suicide is any action taken with the intention and expectation to die. Why should people only be limited to slow starvation and terminal sedation? Most people don't want to die like this.
Also, if you consider removing life support to be "natural death", why did you write all those blogs clamoring for Terri Schiavo to be artificially kept alive?
The blogs and articles speak for themselves. To put it succinctly and bluntly: Michael Schiavo.
It's interesting that you support the court's decision in the Cruzan decision. Yet in the Schiavo case, they all sided with Michael, and you disagree.
It's interesting that you support the court's decision in the Cruzan decision. Yet in the Schiavo case, they all sided with Michael, and you disagree.
Sorry for the multiple posts. There seem to be problems with logging on for me.
That's because the US Supreme Court decision is Cruzan favored keeping her alive. It ruled that Missouri's clear and convincing evidence standard was constitutional and upheld a state Supreme Court order keeping her alive.
Her death ordered later by a trial court after a new trial, based on "clear and convincing" evidence that wasn't, was the travesty.
Know the facts. Please.
Post a Comment
<< Home