Assisted Suicide Advocates Factually Challenged About Senate Hearing
It was brought to my attention that the euphemistically named Compassion and Choices (formerly, the Hemlock Society), has a notice on its WEB site about yesterday's committee hearing that is pure baloney. The note states, "Witnesses called by the majority talked about the Netherlands and did not attempt to denigrate the Oregon experience. Compassion & Choices' witnesses performed like ROCK STARS. Julie McMurchie, Ann Jackson and Kathryn Tucker all presented strong, fact-filled testimony that was not challenged."
Whether they performed like rock stars, one could say, is in the ear of the listener. But the assertion that none of us tried to "denigrate the Oregon experience" or failed to challenge Tucker's et.al, assertions, is plainly not true. Rita Marker's testimony was all about Oregon. And I weighed in also during the question and answer portion of the hearing. I pointed out that the law permits suicidal patients to go "doctor shopping" when their personal physicians refuse to assist their suicides. These patients often end up with a doctor referred by assisted suicide advocates and that some knew their death doctors two weeks or less before dying by lethal overdose. I called this rank "Kevorkianism." I also emphasized that the statistics reported by Oregon are unreliable because the state depends on death doctor self-reporting--without engaging in any independent oversight--a point picked up in this AP story about the hearing.
The moral of the story? When assisted suicide advocates make supposed factual assertions, take it with a grain of salt the size of a granite boulder.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:05 PM
36 Comments
36 Comments:
Wesley, the testimony I read at the hearing you testified at was like night and day. I've never heard the process of killing wrapped so well.
I was not comforted by the hospice representative's statement that PAS seekers are not motivated by pain and depression like opponents contend, but are instead motivated by a loss of autonomy, lack of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity and that they feel like they are a burden. The last three sound a lot like depression to me. Not wanting to live because I've lost autonomy sounds like depression too.
I don't see how the PAS case is helped by saying it's not about pain and depression but about loss of autonomy and the enjoyment of life and etc, as if that legitimizes it. This is another one of those condescending putdowns wrapped up as "compassion" that tells a whole class of people that their lives are not worth living. If these were healthy, ambulatory, promising teenagers who were in a funk, they'd get them counseling because they "have so much to live for" just as they did to a close friend who tried to commit suicide even though he was homecoming king, student body president, a track star and couldn't keep the girls away. We put boatloads of money into preventing THEIR suicides. But, if you don't have long to live and you aren't autonomous, don't enjoy life and feel burdensome, then we can understand that YOU'D want to kill yourself. That is bigoted and says that we don't believe that those lives are worth living because of their physical makeup and abilities.
The notion that meaning in life diminishes as automy diminishes or that the value of life is dependent upon its length is offensive.
I'm guessing that that lady has no idea that's what her words mean and that's how people living highly dependent lives are going to hear it. She probably thinks her words are "compassionate" too.
The Congress has to amend the CSA to keep doctors and patients from suicide in the interest of promoting human life. To do otherwise is to tell a whole class of people that we agree that their lives are not living. That is intolerable.
Don Nelson
Sparks, NV
Yea. At the hearing we heard a lot about unbearable suffering and pain, and etc. Then, it isn't about pain, but dignity ane loss of enjoyment. It kind of whipsawed. A lot of emotionalism from the other side. That is their strongest card.
That hospice rep. is really hemlock, if you get my drift. She pretends to be "neutral," but she is about as neutral as I am. She know precisely what her words mean and how she hopes the listener will interpret them.
Despite euthanasia being illegal in Australia, the only study done thus far on unconsented euthanasia and hastening of death shows that MORE people are killed against their will in Australia.
And yes, refusing a feeding tube or a respirator ARE conscious decisions to choose death over life. The only difference is the length of time it takes to die. And then there's the double effect "excuse".
Winston Jen: Try as you like to pretend there isn't one, the distinction between killing and allowing natural death is a significant and crucial one ethically and morally. Indeed, it has become one of the most settle issues in American jurisprudence.
Is there REALLY a significant difference? Weren't you the one decrying Schiavo's removal from life support? Why should people's options only be starvation or palliative care?
Your view is akin to a mugger putting a gun to someone's head and demanding "Your money or your life". It's not much of a choice, is it?
I think that you just fear the opposition you would face if you tried to make it illegal for people to refuse treatment.
Uh, Terri Schiavo WASN'T on life support; she needed only a feeding tube.
But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good utilitarian argument?
Winston, the idea that unconsented euthanasia may be common in Australia despite anti-euthanasia laws doesn't really help your case. I'd be interested to look at the study myself, if you have the reference. As is the case with most responsible scholarly or scientific literature, a given study is generally only as valuable as it is strictly relevant to the question(s) asked. The result you've cited may only be a statistical correlation, which is not the same thing as causation. The recognition that correlation and causation are not identical is a basic part of intellectual discipline.
Even if there is causation involved, you're neglecting the fact that the study may only be bringing to light an important aspect of a developing Australian "culture of death." As Wesley has said, there is actually a significant difference between killing and allowing natural death, unless you fail to understand death as something much more complex than whether or not you "croak." The meaning of death (and of life) can't be reduced to a mere "point of no return." The fact that you don't recognize this suggests that you really don't understand the nature of what you're trying to defend.
Beyond the rhetoric, do you really think that a mugger putting a gun to someone's head and demanding his money or his life is analogous to killing vs. allowing natural death? On what basis are they identical? The truth is that it is a choice, although it is one with difficult consequences either way. However, people's lives are not the same things as dollars.
No one is pretending that palliative care or some other form of end-of-life treatment is free of all difficulties. I suspect you think that because you view pain and discomfort as ultimate evils and their avoidance, if not outright pleasure, as the ultimate good. Because of that, you can't differentiate between modes of death, and it doesn't matter to you whether one is actively killed or dies having promoted life to the greatest extent possible. Without that distinction, you can't even begin to discuss this issue in a mature manner; you don't possess the intellectual category necessary for the basis of the discussion.
Of course, the door is open to opposing the possibility of refusing treatment in some cases. That would be a separate issue as complex as the situations people find themselves in. However, that issue is also linked to the foundational distinctions you don't recognize in this discussion. There need not be any fear of opposition on the part of the "culture of life." It's more likely that the current emphasis of the "culture of life" in opposing euthanasia/assisted suicide is due to that culture's ability to stay on topic and rightly identify a current threat, attempting to defend life from a current quite vocal enemy.
Now I'd like to make a suggestion about your fear(s), since that is your method of argumentation: I suspect the reason you abstain from any discussion of the basis of your opinions is that you fear both the realization of your incoherent ignorance on many issues as well as the consequences and obligations you would face in submitting to the sort of moral and ethical standards embraced by a "culture of life." The first would imply immaturity and helplessness on your part, and the second would require moral and ethical accountability to someone or something other than your opinions.
By the way, we're all on life support. None of us is ultimately self-sufficient. A "culture of life" supports life, sometimes by what has been called life support. A "culture of death" is too preoccupied with avoiding certain aspects of life, namely pain and discomfort, that it actually supports the active ending of life over against the enemies it sees in pain and discomfort. Such a culture is not concerned with life, but chooses death (at least for some) by default.
This post was about how the Compassion and Choices folk misstated (to put it tactfully) what happened at the Senate hearing. It was not to open a general dialogue about assisted suicide. But hey, have it it, guys.
"Uh, Terri Schiavo WASN'T on life support; she needed only a feeding tube."
Remove the tube and she would have died. She wasn't able to swallow (except maybe as a random reflex).
"But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good utilitarian argument?"
Hey, you guys started it. Choosing to starve yourself is suicide. But anything is OK to you as long as it isn't painless, I suppose. Take away 40 years of your life by smoking - hey, no problem!
BAP, I'll have a link for you within the next few days.
The choice between starvation and palliative care are not good enough to some people, and most would at least want that option if things got too bad. Offering them two options they don't want isn't much of a choice.
One other thing, BAP.
If you can't see the similarity between choosing to stop treatment and be 'allowed to die' and taking a lethal dose, then you are the one who is more likely to be intellectually dishonest and
If you can't see the similarity between choosing to stop treatment and be 'allowed to die' and taking a lethal dose, then you are the one who is more likely to be intellectually dishonest and unable to carry out a reasoned debate.
When a patient chooses to starve, or let the cancer kill them, they have ESSENTIALLY CHOSEN DEATH.
Why is a quick death so immoral, according to you? Do you want people to stay alive against their will so that you can appear "compassionate"?
Wesley, sorry for getting off topic. I guess I couldn't let other off-topic remarks go unaddressed without conniving in their errors.
I think we're actually experiencing the effects of willful misrepresentation of the truth throughout the discussion of these issues. Compassion and Choices is probably just a more recent visible example. It isn't surprising that the C&C self-aggrandisement was posted on the organization's own website. That's where such an erroneous statement would have its greatest effect, given the likelihood that many people sympathetic to C&C may look there first or exclusively for coverage of the hearings. They would have difficulty getting away with making such a statement via too many widely used media outlets because the misrepresentation would be obvious to too many people.
I think another source of misrepresentation of these issues can be unintentional for some, particularly when they are swept along by the more vocal in their school of thought. For example, failure to understand the significance and limitations of the literature they learn from their organizations to cite has occurred repeatedly in some arenas of the general debate, including some comments on this blog.
In other situations, there seems to be the loss of integrity on the part of some participants in the debate as the rhetoric they use ceases to be understood even by them, despite their continued use of it. When the foundation crumbles from beneath the thought processes, it's possible to end up with people like the C&C group being given an official public venue through which to spew the various forms of thought pollution they manufacture.
We've seen such a shifting foundation on this blog even. The "case" for assisted suicide/euthanasia here has been characterized by all of the above flaws, and its foundation continually shifts. This isn't surprising in the case of C&C or of any comments here, though. When the foundation is so elusive, the best one can do to "support" the viewpoint based on that irresolute foundation is evade questions, shout loudly, keep moving, hope that others will fall in line behind you, and deride those who don't.
The Congress should amend the CSA to say that using controlled substances for euthanasia/assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose. There are many reasons for doing so. Chief among them is that the government has the duty to protect the right to life of everyone living under its governance. It must use whatever means it legally can to prevent or limit assisted suicide. If it doesn't, that government is acknowledging that it believes that certain classes of people are really life unworthy of life and that we can understand why THEY would want to die. That is not only dehumanizing, it is also bigoted and a direct threat to the right to life of anyone who bears those characteristics... loss of autonomy, feeling like they are a burden, lack of present enjoyment of life. Not only that, it threatens all of us because once we establish that SOME lives are life unworthy of life, then the rest of us are threatened too. We become subject to negotiation about the lack of or degree of certain characteristics.
The Congress must amend the CSA to say that use of controlled substances to assist in suicide is not an acceptable medical purpose. Our government should not allow there to be even a hint that some lives are so lacking in value that we could understand that they'd want to kill themselves. When governments fail to act against this kind of thinking, they are failing in their duties to protect the most fundamental right, the right to life.
Winston,
Allowing someone to die when they are actually dying and shutting down is one thing. Making their bodies shut down by denying them the most ordinary of provisions is an entirely different deal.
Making someone die is murder. Murder is wrong.
Next.
I think you're right, Don. If government fails in the function of protecting life by allowing the lives of some to become negotiable, then all human lives are at stake. This is particularly true as life itself is redefined in the minds of some. If the trend works itself out to its logical conclusions, the future of humanity will be jeopardized in that under the conditions of widespread redefinition of life there may no longer be any basis for defending any lives. As transhumanism and feminism get into the act and synergize in some conceivable ways with the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement, we may lose sight completely of what was ever meant by the term human.
Winston, Deep Toad is right. Your "mugger" analogy is nonsensical in this context. Because the avoidance of pain and discomfort in themselves are your highest goods, you can't distinguish between deaths. Apparently, in your thinking killing someone is not different from allowing someone to die when life has been promoted to the greatest extent possible. That thinking is yet another similarity between your ideas and the C&C group Wesley dealt with honorably and cogently during the Senate hearing.
Deep Frog, I was referring to the "choice" of dying naturally and choosing to MAKE YOUR OWN BODY shut down by refusing food and nutrition. It's not much of a choice. YOU are the ones muddying the waters of the debate by claiming that there's a difference between suicide via starvation and suicide via Nembutal or Seconal.
Why are slow deaths the only options the pro-lifers will accept?
As promised, here is the article comparing passive and active euthanasia, with and without consent, in Australia and the Netherlands:
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/feb17/kuhse/kuhse.html
"End-of-life decisions in Australian medical practice
Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer, Peter Baume, Malcolm Clark and Maurice Rickard"
Pertinent points:
"Ending of life without an explicit request from the patient
An estimated 3.5% (0.8%) of all Australian deaths involved termination of the patient's life without the patient's explicit request. There was some discussion with the patient -- although not an explicit request for death to be hastened -- in 38% of these cases. In virtually all of the remaining cases, the doctor did not consider the patient competent (i.e., capable of assessing his or her situation and making a decision about it)."
"Our study shows that Australia had a significantly higher rate of intentional ending of life without the patient's consent, both through the administration of drugs and by withholding or withdrawing treatment, than the Netherlands. Overall, 36.5% (3.5%) of all Australian deaths involved a medical decision either partly or explicitly intended to hasten death or not prolong life, compared with 19.5% of deaths in the Netherlands.4 Further comparisons with the data from the Netherlands are shown in Box 5. The difference in the rates of euthanasia between the two countries was not statistically significant. However, the rates of intentionally ending life without an explicit request from the patient were significantly higher in Australia than in the Netherlands (P < 0.0001)."
Also, Deep Frog, if consent is relevant when it comes to removing life support, why is it not relevant when it comes to assisted suicide?
Also, Don Nelson, Theresa Stephany, a HOSPICE NURSE, in the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care (July/August 1994, Vol. 2, No. 4) said, "It is insulting to assume that patients who request assisted suicide are clinically depressed. Many are just realistic. They know what lies ahead and they'd rather not continue with it."
In Oregon, patients who ask for Death with Dignity under the law are required to be examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist, and found to NOT be suffering from clinical depression.
Also, check out this, from a disabled woman with arthritis:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1682652&postcount=83
Pain Scale
0 Pain free
1 Very minor annoyance
mild aches to some parts of the body. No pain medication needed.
2 Minor annoyance
dull aches to some parts of the body. No pain medication needed.
3 Annoying enough to be distracting
Over-the-Counter pain relievers take care of it.
4 Can be ignored if you are really involved in your work, but still
distracting. Over-the-Counter pain relievers remove pain for 3-4 hours.
5 Can't be ignored for more than 30 minutes
Over-the-Counter pain relievers help somewhat (bring pain level from 5
to a 3 or 4) with pain for 3-4 hours.
6 Can't be ignored for any length of time
Can still go to work and participate in social activities. Stronger
painkillers relieve pain for 3-4 hours.
7 Makes it difficult to concentrate, interferes with sleep
Can still function with effort. Stronger painkillers are only partially
effective. (Stronger pain killers bring pain from a 7 to 4-6.)
8 Physical activity severely limited
Can read and converse with effort. Stronger pain killers are not
effective. (Narcotic pain killers do bring this pain down to a level 3 or
lower.)
9 Non functional for all practical purposes
Cannot concentrate. Physical activity halted. Panic sets in. (Narcotic
Pain killers bring the pain level from 9 to the 4-6 level.)
10 Totally non-functional
Unable to speak. Crying out or moaning uncontrollably - near delirium.
And when pro-lifers talk about compassion, take it with a grain of salt the size of the universe.
Two words why ALL legislation allowing "doctor-assisted suicide" and euthanasia should be defeated: managed care.
With our totally broken health care system, NOBODY should trust the medical community (and insurance companies) to make the right decision for those most vulnerable to being killed.
The "bioethicists" just love to paint people who oppose eugenics as a bunch of religious nuts, but this is NOT a religious issue, and I am sick and tired of it being framed that way. I am also sick of the "culture of death" rhetoric on the other side because it tends to reinforce what the propagandists on the bioethics side are trying to push. It's quasi-religious, and this is NOT a religious issue. This is a HEALTH CARE ISSUE, and people who claim they support health care as a right but want to deny health care to the people who need it most are flaming hypocrites.
This is NOT about "freedom" or "choice," because the vast majority of people who are faced with being euthanized or medically killed are NOT make the "choice"; it's being made FOR them by the "ethics" committees, unscupulous guardians, idiotic judges, and insurance companies that want to save money.
Health care access and medical discrimination are what this is all about, and if the public knew what the real issues were, they would reject the bioethics propaganda.
Winston, yet again you're faulting the views of others simply because you don't agree with them. The "choice" you refer to between starvation and euthanasia/assisted suicide is interpreted differently from the general "culture of life" viewpoint. There is a meaningful distinction between deaths in the latter viewpoint because death is not simply a cessation of life with no context. In your viewpoint, there is not a meaningful distinction because you see only the "point of no return/pain/discomfort" aspect of death. The choice in your view isn't much of a choice because a limited view of death is blind to the complex context of life and death. There isn't a "muddying of the waters" in the culture of life viewpoint; there is the definition of issues and a recognition that issues are more complex than you may be willing to realize.
The "speed" of death should not be strictly relevant according to your view, if you are to remain logically consistent. That's an appeal to emotion that can only be really effective if death has precisely the kind of meaning you wish to avoid. Your objection actually demonstrates the validity of the distinction recognized by the culture of life viewpoint.
Winston, thanks for the article link. As with virtually all other scientific studies, there are complex implications of any data obtained. That's no different here, as the editorial comments suggest. Your evaluation of the article is based on a background of rhetoric, including prior conclusions that are themselves debatable.
As Wesley pointed out in the original posting for this thread, there can be selective presentation or misrepresentation of information within the "culture of death" movement. It would be most helpful for us all to refer to specific studies or clearly reasoned philosophical arguments on these issues rather than volleys of rhetoric or such selectivity. Clear reasoning should account for alternate interpretations of findings, but that requires an openness to exploring the opinions of others and their bases. Clarity also requires accuracy and honesty in the reporting of facts and opinions. Does anyone have any information on whether or not the culture of death advocates in the Senate hearing have been confronted with their dishonest reporting?
Winston, consent is relevant to life support as well as assisted suicide. However, the point you seem unwilling to recognize is that the opinion implied by consent is not a sufficient basis for moral or ethical action. That too seems to be a dividing line between the "culture of death" and the "culture of life." Opinions as sufficient bases of all action do bring about between people the very isolation characteristic of death, which is one of the reasons the "culture of death" has been given that label.
Winston wrote:
“Also, Don Nelson, Theresa Stephany, a HOSPICE NURSE, in the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care (July/August 1994, Vol. 2, No. 4) said, ‘It is insulting to assume that patients who request assisted suicide are clinically depressed. Many are just realistic. They know what lies ahead and they'd rather not continue with it.’"
Wow, I have insulting ideas. I’m so ashamed. People who don't want to live have given up hope. A life without hope is a life of despair. Saying you feel like a burden, your life isn't worth living, and you want to die because you are dependent and not autonomous sounds depressive to me.
But that's not my argument. My argument is that when the state allows assisted suicide and doesn't do all that it can to prevent it, it tells whole classes of people that their lives are not worth living. It sounds close to the argument that aborting the unborn is acceptable because he or she might be handicapped, live a short life, be poor, be abused, unwanted and etc. What does that say about those classes of people? It says that the handicapped, the poor, the abused and the “unwanted” and those with certain genetic traits are so lacking in meaning and dignity that we can/should kill anyone who might turn out like them-and that we’d be doing all of us a favor-society and the targeted person. The state must run away from that kind of bigotry and any suggestion that there is anything such as life unworthy of life; and it must work against that idea-even when people who want to kill themselves judge that their own lives to be life unworthy of life. That’s one reason the Congress of the United States needs to amend the CSA to ban the use of controlled substances for assisted suicide. The government cannot agree with citizens that their own lives are not life worthy of life without jeopardizing others in that class of people-as well as others. Once the sanctity of life is given up/lessened/denied for one person or group, the right to life for the rest of us is negotiable.
It’s bizarre to me that we expend incredible resources to prevent certain people from committing suicide like my “perfect” relative who was student body president, homecoming king, track star, the All-American boy/girl and etc… But when we hear others express suicidal thoughts, we try to make sure they really know what they are doing instead of ordering intervention. What makes the one more worth living than the other? How do we agree that the one is less worth living without saying that all others like him/him or her don’t have worthwhile lives? But then again, there’s the notion of rational suicide and attempts to allow early teens to participate in it in Holland. Maybe there’s a consistency held to by some who think that it is just as bizarre that we would try to prevent suicides of people who “know what lies ahead and they’d rather not continue with it” no matter how much we think they have to live for and no matter how big of a waste we think it is for them to throw away such promise.
By the way Winston, save the putdowns about pro-life compassion. A lot of that “grain of salt” is actually the “salt of the earth.” No one on my side takes those putdowns seriously from the culture of death. It makes for a good laugh, but that’s about it.
Congratulations, Don, you've been immortalized:
http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=12010
Also, how dare you complain about people feeling "depressed" from losing autonomy?! You're violating their autonomy, and telling them that they are being irrational. If anything is likely to encourage suicide among the terminally ill, that disrespectful, unwilling-to-listen attitude is.
In Oregon, patients who choose assisted suicide are wealthy and explore all options before even having the prescription filled. Not all of them take it, but it is an enormous comfort, although you'd rather commit torture by omission.
Don, congratulations on getting your comments on FSTDT. I think it indicates that you've said something worthwhile enough to bother those who worship rhetoric on the issues rather than pursue truth in the issues. They seem to think that mockery is the surest way to rebut your comments. I agree with you, Don. Winston, feel free to quote me on that.
I don't recall Don suggesting that he complains about the depression of people who believe they have lost autonomy. Instead, Winston seems to be complaining that the basic tenets of his philosophy leave him and others no choice but despair when pain and discomfort enter the picture. Again, there is apparently no defense of the concept of ultimate autonomy, just accusations and insults. The culture of death, as represented here by Winston, even claims rationality while refusing to engage rational arguments by defending ideas.
Winston, I can understand the idea of comfort you're talking about. I think you're saying that the comfort comes from knowing that there is a way out of the pain and discomfort rather having to face the fact that there is no such escape. Please correct my perception if necessary.
I also think you're missing the point that Don and others have been making. The point is that suicide prevention is crucial, not simply to keep people from dying but to promote a life the quality of which is not defined by pain and discomfort alone. The point is not to prevent death for no reason or to make sure people die horribly unpleasant deaths, according to your accusations. The point is that one's understandings of life and death are more complex than the simple question of whether or not one can feel pain of a certain level or whether or not one wants to die.
Wanting to die is one opinion; wanting to live is another. Relevant to both of those opinions is the general context of meaning as understood by the people involved. That foundation is the important issue the culture of life seeks to address. It is also the issue the culture of death seeks to avoid.
There is a reason you've consistently avoided that point. It's either related to categories of thought that are not meaningful to you or it's related to ideas that you don't wish to acknowledge for some reason. For everyone's sake and intellectual integrity, let's clear the air and recognize that. If you still don't want to talk about the issues by listening to others and refraining from verbal attacks and accusations, then I suggest you're wasting everyone's time.
If suicide prevention is as important as you say, why doesn't the "pro-life" government spend more money on health care, including psychologists and psychiatrists?
In Australia, Lisette Nigot wanted to die before she turned 80. There was a documentary made about it - http://www.exitinternational.net/mademoiselle.htm
Surely, if the government believes in preventing suicide, they should have locked her in a mental asylum to prevent her from "hurting" herself (that's right - harm is subjective). The government did not, however. Doesn't this suggest that the government doesn't think that suicide prevention should entail deprivation of liberty. They did not believe in "doing everything possible" to prevent suicide.
Yes, I was referring to the comfort that having a lethal dose beside you can have. It's an escape route. Would you call the people who died on 9/11 by jumping out the windows "immoral"? They were choosing one of two deaths. It's not like they had much of a choice.
Also, you should read the post I linked you to:
" When pain never drops below level 6, even with painkillers, it becomes somewhat irrational to ignore the quality of one's life for simple quantity. It's rather difficult to maximize pleasure when even heavy doses of narcotic painkillers merely blunt the pain enough that one can just barely function. How many months or years of this life would you be willing to bear? What if your condition had no cure and would not kill you, at least not for many years? Worse, what if it progressively crippled you while causing more and more pain?
Would it be rational to cling to such a life? One where you knew you'd be crippled, helpless, and wracked with blinding pain for possibly decades? And each year that passes causes more irreversable damage, so even if a new cure comes down the pipeline, it may be far too late to help you.
This isn't hypothetical. I've seen it happen with patients who have autoimmune forms of arthritis. I've lived through periods that with the narcotics, my pain levels were still an 8 or 9. And I'm currently looking at treatment choices that may have enough horrible side effects that refusing treatment may be the best choice. Quality of life must be considered, or it's not a rational choice at all, it's simply blinding clinging to life."
The last sentence is particularly profound.
Lastly, suicide rates did NOT increase after Derek Humphrey published Final Exit. It was even on the bestseller list. That is because death affects everyone who is mortal.
An unintended side benefit, however, was that VIOLENT suicides went down, meaning that there were fewer innocent victims of people jumping off buildings, etc.
Winston, you heard what you wanted to hear in my statement that suicide prevention is important. However, I said nothing about government, and I can't personally label the entire U.S. government as 'pro-life,' assuming you're talking about the U.S. government. Presumably, the U.S. Senate is interested in the issue of assisted suicide/euthanasia, which is why they held the hearing in which Wesley participated.
There is an unexamined presupposition in your question as to why the 'pro-life' government doesn't spend more on health care, including psychologists and psychiatrists. That is that it is the 'job' of government to regulate health care. As a matter of fact, government does have its hands in health care. As a matter of principle, I don't believe government should.
The anecdote of Ms. Nigot is no reason to accept the hand of government in health care or suicide prevention or any other area of human life (and death). Again you fail to recognize that the broader context of suicide is more complex than the simple cessation of life by the one ceasing to live. Your 'mental asylum' solution is comical but not helpful. The fact that the government did not lock Ms. Nigot away doesn't in itself suggest that the government has concluded anything specific regarding suicide prevention. It may only suggest that the government is rightly open to means of preventing suicide that do not require direct action of government and that do not violate certain other liberties it seeks to defend. These other means need not involve government.
When one doesn't find assisted suicide and euthanasia acceptable options, there is no comfort in knowing that either is so readily available, particularly when one may be eliminated without consent. Still, I can understand your point that one's opinion of comfort is significant. I'm glad you recognize at least that because it's precisely the point of 'culture of life' arguments that opinions can change and that suicide prevention should involve treatment of the whole person, including his psychology.
A natural effect of a prevalent 'culture of life' would logically be a dramatic reduction in suicides because such a culture sees humans as more than their opinions while dealing with them in their totality, including their opinions. When people view life differently, it's natural that they should also think differently even about their deaths.
I can't say anything regarding the 'morality' of those who jumped to their deaths on 9/11. I think there are good reasons to suspect that they were no different in principle from any of us alive today. It should be obvious that the fact that some chose a particular way to die doesn't legitimize suicide per se, unless one subscribes to your undefended viewpoint that opinion is the determinant of moral and ethical soundness.
Given your general arguments on this blog, I suggest that you also read the post you linked me to. What you've been hinting at is that pain of a certain level on a subjective scale merits consideration of quality of life in addition to quantity. In saying that, you choose to ignore the point that neither quality nor quantity is the only important issue.
'How many months or years of this life would you be willing to bear? What if your condition had no cure and would not kill you, at least not for many years? Worse, what if it progressively crippled you while causing more and more pain?' The answers to these questions will have to wait until I'm in such a situation myself. However, at this point, I'd have to say that I'd be willing to bear as many years as I'm given to live. I can say that because I understand life and death to be only parts of the broader picture. I can say that it would be rational to 'cling to such a life' as long as it clings to me. I agree that that last sentence is profound, which is why I believe you'll need to allow for a greater of understanding of quality and meaning of life in order to have an adequate basis of moral and ethical decision making in this issue.
Your statements about the book Final Exit have come out of nowhere. I'm not sure what your point is, but I suspect it has something to do with your simplistic view of complex societal circumstances. Please explain.
My previous comment should've read 'quality of life instead of quantity.'
A bit of reiteration to get back on topic:
'Wanting to die is one opinion; wanting to live is another. Relevant to both of those opinions is the general context of meaning as understood by the people involved. That foundation is the important issue the culture of life seeks to address. It is also the issue the culture of death seeks to avoid.
'There is a reason [the culture of death] consistently avoid[s] that point. It's either related to categories of thought that are not meaningful to [it] or it's related to ideas that [it doesn't] wish to acknowledge for some reason. For everyone's sake and intellectual integrity, let's clear the air and recognize that.'
The reason I reiterate this is to point out the truth of Wesley's statements during his Senate hearing testimony:
'There are two deep ideological beliefs asserted by advocates for legalizing assisted suicide. The first is radical individualism that perceives the right of personal autonomy as being virtually absolute. Accordingly, promoters of assisted suicide generally believe that 'the individual’s right to self-determination—to control the time, place, and manner of death' is a paramount liberty interest. The second ideological principle underlying assisted suicide advocacy is that killing (ending life) is an acceptable answer to the problem of human suffering.'
As C&C has neglected facts of testimony that are matters of public record in order to avoid dealing with the argumentative consequences, so the culture of death as a whole seems to be neglecting or avoiding issues that may call for discussion of these two undefended fundamental beliefs. We're witnessing a microcosm of this in the discussions on this blog.
Winnie,
Thanks for trying to grant me immortality. It was nice of you to think of me. My comments to that site and your alleged reason for me saying it are posted below. BAP, right on. Go get 'em.
I'm sorry it took so long to get back to them. I've been working on my own blog, working on spreading the culture of life here, tending to my dad and prepping for our radio show www.ihradio.org-Voice For Life, which Wes has been on several times. He's our best guest in my opinion.
Win, you still did not respond to my argument as to why the state should discourage assisted suicide and why it has an interest in promoting life. You keep running away to tell me that PAS is okay because people aren't depressed, which wasn't my argument. But I will say that the description that I read from that nurse testifying to congress sounded like depression to me. Your argument is with her, not me.
All of you "self killing is good" people have these arguments that certain conditions make suicide rational and good. You have to make them to justify your position. Those arguments tells people with those conditions that their lives are life unworthy of life. That is biggoted and dehumanizing. The state must oppose that with all means it can even when people want to kill themselves.
My dad has had horrible arthritis for over 40 years. He also has spinal stenosis, is missing part of a limb from diabetes and obesity and is not autonomous. I do not consider his life less worth living or any attempt to do himself in to be rational. I did not consider my mother's final days in her battle with painful cancer to be any less meaninful either. I find any suggestion that people like him should have the right to do so to be offensive.
I did not argue that PAS was bad because only poor people were going to do it. Though I think that is a serious potential problem with the HMO situation here in America. I think the fact those doing it are wealthy and educated is more of a commentary on wealth and education. It's clear frfom your comments that the condition of being wealthy and educated doesn't increase happiness, satisfaction or purpose. My friends in Oakland CA who were refugees from SE Asia in the 80's and had nothing but the clothes on their back and lived two and three families to a little rental home had more happiness.
People who are in pain, have a short time to live, have lost autonomy and etc do not lose or diminish their capacity to have meaning and purposeful lives as long as they are able to keep living. That's because human dignity, purpose, happiness and meaning do not depend on one's physical condition/abilities or their abilities to order their worlds. To limit purpose in life to those things is frankly spiritually impoverished-and I don't mean it in the fundamentalist sense you characterized me at the website. Humans are more than their physical powers and ability to be autonomous. They still contribute to others and experience intense spiritual experiences even when they lose the former.
My comments to that site you posted my comments to to try to ridicule me are below.
Don Nelson
Winnie is a little self absorbed here. I wasn't responding to her argument. I was responding to United States Senate testimony on whether or not the Congress should amend the Controlled Substances Act to ban the use of narcotics to assist people in self killing because assisting that self-killing is not a legitimate medical purpose.
My words "The notion that meaning in life diminishes as automy (spelling error-I went to USA public schools) diminishes or that the value of life is dependent upon its length is offensive" are self-evident. My dad is in a group home in Castro Valley CA because he is partially incapacitated by a stroke. Thank God Winnie's not there. She'd finish him off for her perceived lack of meaning. His live is not anyless meaningful because he’s lost his autonomy and has to be given his meds 8 times a day and have his diabetic meals cooked three times a day. My mother died from cancer. It was a painful death. She drank morphine out of the bottle. I wouldn't trade those last days of her life for anything. She was still pouring herself out to me even in those last days. Her life didn't stop being meaningful just because she was dying, in pain and lost her autonomy to the point that we had to change her. Meaning/purpose and happiness in life are not dependent upon our physical/sexual proweress or the ability to control our world. There's far more to life than those things. I will never reduce human dignity to the possession of those traits. To do so would be undignified.
My words "I'm guessing that that lady has no idea that's what her words mean and that's how people living highly dependent lives are going to hear it. She probably thinks her words are "compassionate" too" are self-evident too for humane people. When we argue for self-killing based on someone's life or physical condition, we are telling everyone with those circumstances or conditions that we think their lives are so pathetic that we think their self murder is understandable.
It would have been nice if Winnie would have engaged my argument that the state should do everything in its power to oppose the idea that there are certain classes of people whose lives are so meaningless that we can understand why they would want to kill themselves. That is bigoted, condescending, inhumane and makes people in those classes… diminished autonomy and etc, feel like targets. I gave her two chances and she ducked them both and ran for comfort to a site like this which tries to impress its participants by ridicule.
Don Nelson
President
Nevada LIFE
www.nevadalife.org
www.nevadalifeissues.typepad.com
Sparks, NV, USA
Don, if you want the government to prevent all suicides, they would have to make it illegal to refuse treatment. After all, self-starvation is also suicide, albeit a very SLOW method. Inserting a feeding tube via surgery is medical treatment, however you wish to look at it.
The government rightfully recognises that there are some things more important than the prolongation of biological life, such as liberty.
Your stance of preserving life until people die naturally is sick and disgusting, because it give no consideration to how people in that situation feel. It is painfully clear that you have not endured any real pain YOURSELF in your life. It's always much easier to watch others in pain than it is to go through that pain yourself.
Winston, you've left yourself no way to know whether or not the "feeling" of wanting to kill oneself is actually part of the condition/illness that needs to be addressed. An important point being made by so many 'culture of life' promoters/defenders is that it does matter whether or not people perceive the quality of their own lives and whether or not they prefer death. However, the context of meaning of those perceptions and preferences is also important. It would be more compassionate of us as human beings to promote a different understanding of life and death than that which is held out to us by the 'culture of death.'
You've reiterated ad nauseum that your opinion is that opinion itself is all that matters in such cases as we've been discussing, yet you refuse to offer any basis for your assertions or even to acknowledge that your assertions can even be called into question. If you take anything at all away from these discussions, please at least realize that 'opinion as the basis of opinion' and 'opinion as the basis of moral and ethical judgment' are nonsensical. If you choose not to defend your viewpoint, I can understand that. What I don't understand is why you continue to provide opportunities for 'culture of life' supporters to demonstrate their criticisms by their questions and your silence on the most basic of issues.
Once again, you claim to know what is in the hearts and minds of others when you say, 'It is painfully clear that you have not endured any real pain YOURSELF in your life. It's always much easier to watch others in pain than it is to go through that pain yourself.' You have know way of knowing this; it's just another insulting accusation. However, I'm actually glad you mention it because your choice of words serves to discredit your opinion. You seem to suggest that watching others endure pain is not a genuine experience of pain. However, you claim that there is something 'painfully clear' in Don's comments. Is that pain genuine or not? The fact that you can imply the reality of that pain suggests the reality of pain in the experience of observing others in pain.
In addition, the experience of pain of a specific nature is not a prerequisite for moral and ethical judgment concerning that pain. We have no reason to doubt the 'legitimacy' of Don's pain because there is a universality in pain of which all human beings are acutely aware, even if they have not experienced identical instances of pain. Your statements to the contrary are a telling reminder of the isolation you choose to set up between yourself and others. By declaring others ignorant of 'real' pain or by declaring them otherwise out of touch with a prerequisite experience, you hope to reserve for yourself the right to pass judgment on the issue at hand. However, the very isolation you set up between us all is reason enough to dispense with the notion of inducing a moral or ethical principle from individual opinions.
Winston Jen said...
"Don, if you want the government to prevent all suicides, they would have to make it illegal to refuse treatment. After all, self-starvation is also suicide, albeit a very SLOW method. Inserting a feeding tube via surgery is medical treatment, however you wish to look at it.
The government rightfully recognises that there are some things more important than the prolongation of biological life, such as liberty.
Your stance of preserving life until people die naturally is sick and disgusting, because it give no consideration to how people in that situation feel. It is painfully clear that you have not endured any real pain YOURSELF in your life. It's always much easier to watch others in pain than it is to go through that pain yourself."
Winston,
I get it. You believe there are people whose lives are NOT worth living and as a result think the government should not discourage all suicide. The difference between us is that I believe human value and dignity are inherent, intrinsic, innate, wrapped into the fabric of our being. Those properties are ours by the mere fact of our existence. There are no hoops to jump through or value and dignity tests. You have criteria for a life being worthy of life. It’s bigoted for the government to discourage the killing of certain groups of people, but not others. You would put the government in the position of telling whole classes of people that their lives are not really worth living and self termination is acceptable-we’ll even provide the means to help you go out. I’m guessing people in THOSE classes don’t appreciate that.
Whether or not I have experienced pain or am in pain right now is irrelevant. That’s an ad hominem attack and evasion. It attacks me and not the argument. There are plenty of people who have lost their autonomy, their physical prowess, their ability to make a living, who battle chronic depression and have a short time left to live who would say the exact same things I am saying, but with more force because they hear in your voice that their conditions are so pathetic that their lives are not really worthy of life. They hear you saying it would be understandable if they just went away or killed themselves. If we want to talk about pain, and the feelings of suicidal sufferers, what about the feelings of these people who do not want to kill themselves and how they hear what you are saying about their value? Your argument is with them. Who do THOSE people think are the most compassionate between us? Who do THOSE people think they could trust more with their lives? I’m going to bet it’s our side. I’m guessing people look at Mother Theresa’s treatment of the dying in Calcutta as a lot more humane than Jack Kevorkian. I’m no Mother Theresa.
The government must oppose the idea that there are classes of people whose lives are so pathetic that we could understand their self extermination-they are not worth saving. That idea not only threatens people with pain, disability or whatever your side argues rationalizes life worthy of life, it targets them and targets all of us because it suggests that the quality of human life is negotiable and subject to the valuation/assessment of some group of people. People do not have the right to force the state/public to agree with them that their lives are life unworthy of life and in the process dehumanize all those sharing their characteristics.
Life comes before liberty in the ordering of rights. Without life, there is no liberty. I’d rather be Mandela or Solzhenitsyn in a prison than dead.
You dehumanize people by the words “prolongation of biological life.” These people you are talking about are mere biological organisms. They are not mere biological life. But then your side has to resort to these dehumanizations to get your way. They are human beings with inherent dignity and value. The value of human beings and their meaning do not depend on their degree of autonomy, their condition or the amount of time they have left to live. My view is disgusting? I’ll let people decide between us who is disgusting… a person like you who thinks there are classes of people who are life unworthy of life and whose dignity, purpose and value diminishes with their autonomy, physical condition and etc, or those of us who believe that human dignity, value, meaning and etc are inherent, innate, intrinsic to our being.
I think human beings have inherent value and dignity. You don’t. At least you can’t believe that to come to your position. I think that explains our position.
I think we’ve beaten this to death.
Day is dying in the West. Have a good day or night down under.
Post a Comment
<< Home