Cancer Patient Glad He Didn't Commit Assisted Suicide
Stories like this receive way too little attention. A cancer patient in the UK seriously considered assisted suicide, but is now very glad he didn't do the deed and opposes the Joffe Bill that would legalize Oregon-style assisted suicide. I know of several stories like this, including my last hospice patient Bob (I was a volunteer), who died of ALS and who wanted to go to Kevorkian but ended up so grateful that he didn't. (With his permission, I have told Bob's story in several articles and in my books.)
Good for the BBC in publicizing this man's opinion.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:51 AM
20 Comments
20 Comments:
So what? If he doesn't want to kill himself, he doesn't have to. That doesn't give him the right to make decisions for everyone else. A two-week waiting period is plenty of time.
BTW, since you didn't respond to my statement about Diane Pretty (a MND sufferer), I'll say this. For every MND sufferer like your beloved hospice patient, there are hundreds more who hate your guts. Studies have shown that the disabled, as a whole, support assisted suicide and euthanasia more than the general population.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The disability rights movement is unanimous in its condemnation of assisted suicide. Your disdain for people like my "beloved" hospice friend is all too clear, as is your apparent acceptance of the concept of the life not worthy of being lived.
Diane Pretty wanted to have her husband kill her without legal consequence. I was in the UK to debate that case when it was happening. That does not mean the law should permit it. Indeed, the British trial court, court of appeal, and the Lords, as well as the EU High Court all agreed to deny her case. She ultimately died peacefully in her sleep.
Your validation of someone's suicide desires is uncompassionate, not kind. It validates their own worst fears--that they are burdens, that they are not loveable, that their lives are not worth living. But the point of this entry and my friend Bob's change of mind--which does not penetrate your euthanasia mindset--is that they are happy to be alive, when, if your views prevailed, they would have died. People change their minds. People overcome that which they don't believe they can overcome. Not always, but often. It is part of being human.
It seems to me that our job as loving and truly compassionate neighbors to help them do that, and supporting their suicides is exactly the wrong message and public policy.
The only articles I could find on Diane Pretty's death described it as choking to death over a week. But then again, I guess a perpetual coma without consent is better than death in 3 minutes with consent.
The disability movement is NOT unanimous, and it certainly doesn't represent the majority of their members. http://www.deathwithdignity.org/news/news/autonomy.11.22.05.asp
Please refrain from ignoring polls and stories in the future. It doesn't help your credibility, but seeing as I am a rare change to your plethora of 'yes-men' on this blog, it probably means little to you.
Source for Diane Pretty's painful death: http://www.rationalistinternational.net/archive/en/rationalist_2002/96.htm#1
"The 43-year-old terminally ill euthanasia campaigner, paralyzed from her neck down by motor neuron disease and unable to speak during her last months, died on 11 May, suffering severe pain and breathing problems. Her death was described as "horrific". "
Also, in Phillip Nitschke's latest book, "Killing me Softly: Voluntary Euthanasia and the Road to the Peaceful Pill", he mentioned a group of MND sufferers who have agreed to help each other die when the time comes. Those who can still move their arms and/or legs will assist. Can you imagine the PR damage that prosecuting the MND sufferers who do assist would be? It's clear that palliative care isn't adequate to them. They want autonomy, not patronising paternalism.
Another volley of rhetoric from Ms. Winston. The general absence of comments similar to hers on this blog neither increases her credibility nor does any damage to Mr. Smith's credibility, and she speaks out of ignorance to claim otherwise. There are alternate explanations for this proportioning of comments and the many other rhetorical grenades she hurls, and failure to notice or acknowledge these or to reason effectively from such particulars to conclusions indicates a lack of intellectual subtly. Specifically, her inability or unwillingness to examine presuppositions signals submission to a form of intellectual bondage.
The situations and references cited by Ms. Winston seem to indicate once again an emphasis on one’s desires and feelings rather then on questions of ethics and morality, unless of course she simply intends to sneak into the discussion that one’s desires and feelings constitute the basis of ethics and morality. She has given no rationale for the adequacy of a two-week waiting period prior to assisted suicide and appears to have overlooked the fact that there is still an implied valuation of a person’s life that occurs in such a situation. The number of MND patients who "hate Mr. Smith's guts" is irrelevant to the ethical soundness or lack thereof of their decisions to opt for assisted suicide, and it is shameful to trivialize them by suggesting that their plight can be used as rhetorical ammunition.
Presumably, from this perspective, there is a limit to one’s ability to or the likelihood of one’s exercise of a right to change one’s mind, beyond which someone assigns value to a person’s life or merely reserves judgment concerning the value of that person’s life so that the person’s prior decision is followed. In any case, there is at least one important crack in the foundation of Ms. Winston’s viewpoint, and that is the lack of grounding presented for the validity of one’s decision. The viewpoint that highly impressionable desires and feelings can serve as bases of moral and ethical action entails the disintegration of personhood. Presumably, the depressive effect of the weather outside on a given day lowers one’s quality of life and emotional state sufficiently to merit assisted suicide within two weeks. Unfortunately, patients in Seattle who are prone to depression are therefore valued as of lesser worth, so that they will be more likely to die by assisted suicide. Why not work to modulate their emotional state rather than defend their inherently lesser worth than patients in Phoenix? Sounds ridiculous, right? That is what I thought when I realized such a paradigm was underlying Ms. Winston’s arguments. The fact is that people are more than their emotions.
Now I would like to suggest another interpretation of the proportionate lack of so-called "death-on-demand" comments on this blog. The viewpoint characterized in this way is fundamentally opposed to rational argument because it is focused on the primacy of desires and feelings as the basis of ethics and morality. Reason is secondary to the point of dispensability. As a result, there is little interest on the part of “death-on-demand” proponents to engage the type of reason tempered with emotion--and the consistently validated conviction that the basis of ethics and morality, indeed all of life, transcends the fickle emotions--that give rise to blogs like this one. Ms. Winston’s observation that there are few “death-on-demand” comments on this blog does not reflect negatively upon Mr. Smith, those who share his perspective, or this blog, and it certainly has nothing to say regarding his openness to hearing the views of others. On the contrary, it reveals instead the appalling lack of ethical substance that can be mustered by those who adhere to the “anti-principles” championed by Ms. Winston. Rather than dealing with the root issues and then proceeding to the application of principles to particular situations, she presents a series of ad hominem arguments designed to deemphasize the importance of ethical and moral reasoning, in the process betraying the fragmentation of the flimsy viewpoint she attempts to foist on others.
Thanks.
First things first, I'm a guy. Have you ever heard of a woman by the name of "winston"?
BTW, BAP, you seem to have made some new friends - http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=11377
"Another volley of rhetoric from Ms. Winston."
Presenting evidence disproving the claim that Diane Pretty died painlessly in her sleep is not rhetoric. Here's more - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1983457.stm
""They HAD TROUBLE getting her comfortable and pain-free until Thursday evening, after which she started to slip into a coma-like state and eventually died.
"Diane had to go through the one thing she had foreseen and was afraid of - and there was nothing I could do to help.""
Palliative care was inadequate, and she did not want to die that way.
"The general absence of comments similar to hers on this blog neither increases her credibility nor does any damage to Mr. Smith's credibility, and she speaks out of ignorance to claim otherwise."
No, but it does appear to give Mr. Smith delusions of grandeur, and he seems to be skilled at dodging issues and ignoring points he doesn't like, all the while painting his opponents as Nazis.
"There are alternate explanations for this proportioning of comments and the many other rhetorical grenades she hurls, and failure to notice or acknowledge these or to reason effectively from such particulars to conclusions indicates a lack of intellectual subtly. Specifically, her inability or unwillingness to examine presuppositions signals submission to a form of intellectual bondage."
No, I am not as close-minded as you, regardless of the ad hominems you wish to throw around.
"The situations and references cited by Ms. Winston seem to indicate once again an emphasis on one’s desires and feelings rather then on questions of ethics and morality, unless of course she simply intends to sneak into the discussion that one’s desires and feelings constitute the basis of ethics and morality."
No, when Mr. Smith mentioned a MND patient that agreed with his views, I presented evidence of the disabled community as a whole (not just leaders of extremists like NDY) supporting euthanasia, as well as the fact that most people with MND disagree vehemently with Mr. Smith.
"She has given no rationale for the adequacy of a two-week waiting period prior to assisted suicide and appears to have overlooked the fact that there is still an implied valuation of a person’s life that occurs in such a situation."
OK, how about this? A waiting period that is too long encourages people to kill themselves by their own hand rather than continue suffering. Patients deserve autonomy. They don't deserve to have their wishes disregarded because of a vocal MINORITY.
"The number of MND patients who "hate Mr. Smith's guts" is irrelevant to the ethical soundness or lack thereof of their decisions to opt for assisted suicide, and it is shameful to trivialize them by suggesting that their plight can be used as rhetorical ammunition."
Hey, Smith gave an example of a MND sufferer that supported his view, so I gave evidence of those who disagreed with him. If I am trivializing their plight, then so is Mr. Smith, because we are both using them to support our positions.
"Presumably, from this perspective, there is a limit to one’s ability to or the likelihood of one’s exercise of a right to change one’s mind, beyond which someone assigns value to a person’s life or merely reserves judgment concerning the value of that person’s life so that the person’s prior decision is followed. In any case, there is at least one important crack in the foundation of Ms. Winston’s viewpoint, and that is the lack of grounding presented for the validity of one’s decision. The viewpoint that highly impressionable desires and feelings can serve as bases of moral and ethical action entails the disintegration of personhood. Presumably, the depressive effect of the weather outside on a given day lowers one’s quality of life and emotional state sufficiently to merit assisted suicide within two weeks. Unfortunately, patients in Seattle who are prone to depression are therefore valued as of lesser worth, so that they will be more likely to die by assisted suicide. Why not work to modulate their emotional state rather than defend their inherently lesser worth than patients in Phoenix? Sounds ridiculous, right? That is what I thought when I realized such a paradigm was underlying Ms. Winston’s arguments. The fact is that people are more than their emotions."
People deserve the right to own their lives. If they don't, then they are owned by people like you, the anti-choicers, and their archaic traditions. People own their lives because no one but the individual experiences their pain, and no one chose to be born, so forcing them to live is, in effect, slavery.
"Now I would like to suggest another interpretation of the proportionate lack of so-called "death-on-demand" comments on this blog. The viewpoint characterized in this way is fundamentally opposed to rational argument because it is focused on the primacy of desires and feelings as the basis of ethics and morality. Reason is secondary to the point of dispensability. As a result, there is little interest on the part of “death-on-demand” proponents to engage the type of reason tempered with emotion--and the consistently validated conviction that the basis of ethics and morality, indeed all of life, transcends the fickle emotions--that give rise to blogs like this one. Ms. Winston’s observation that there are few “death-on-demand” comments on this blog does not reflect negatively upon Mr. Smith, those who share his perspective, or this blog, and it certainly has nothing to say regarding his openness to hearing the views of others. On the contrary, it reveals instead the appalling lack of ethical substance that can be mustered by those who adhere to the “anti-principles” championed by Ms. Winston. Rather than dealing with the root issues and then proceeding to the application of principles to particular situations, she presents a series of ad hominem arguments designed to deemphasize the importance of ethical and moral reasoning, in the process betraying the fragmentation of the flimsy viewpoint she attempts to foist on others."
Your position is the flimsy one. If people aren't hurting anyone else, they should be allowed to do anything they want. Anything else is social fascism. We already have Suicide by Cop, and with all the coverage of terrorism and the methods of suicide bombing, it's only a matter of time before a cancer patient, AIDS sufferer or, yes, a MND sufferer decides to blow themself up.
Because first things are first: Winston, I apologize for any offense I have caused by acting on the assumption that you are female. I never have heard of a woman named Winston, but I have also never heard of the surname Jen. I assumed your name was reversed to allow identification without compromising your privacy and opening yourself up to spam, if that is possible.
By new friends, I assume you mean that you have managed to alert others with a perspective similar to yours to my comment(s) on this blog. For that, I thank you. Please also let them know that, if any of them do wish to discuss these important issues calmly, I invite them to do so on this blog. On the other hand, I do take offense at the mockery in which you have participated by posting my comment on FSTDT. However, I am not surprised, given the general tone of your comments here. In the future, I request that you do your comrades a favor by referring them to the discussion(s) from which the comments come rather than filtering their reality for them. You owe that much to their right to autonomy, assuming in your view that they do have that.
I continue to stand by my statement that what you have done on this blog is present rhetoric in an attempt to force agreement or some form of submission to your ideas. I cannot vouch for all that Mr. Smith has said concerning the deaths of any given patients, and I did not intend to. However, I do not need to defend him or the proposition that patients with whatever terminal illness die painlessly in their sleep. I need not dispute that it became difficult to make Ms. Pretty comfortable and pain-free or that she slipped into a coma-like state and eventually died. I simply don’t know exactly how events transpired. Neither do you, unless you were there, without a secondhand account.
Your understanding of the adequacy or inadequacy of palliative care cannot help but be affected by your view of what people attempt to accomplish through it. I receive from your comments the impression that you believe that all pain and discomfort are evils in themselves and are therefore to be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of the life of the one who experiences them. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your viewpoint. If I have, please submit a comment explaining your understanding on this issue. (Perhaps Mr. Smith would be willing to post something directing readers to this discussion.) The reason I would like to have clarified what your understanding is is that I think it may be flawed as a foundation for your moral and ethical reasoning on the issues discussed on this and other blogs. For my part, I understand palliative care to be inadequate in many cases in terms of eliminating all pain and discomfort. However, I suspect that I understand pain and discomfort differently from you. In other words, I am not in principle opposed to palliative care because I am not opposed in principle to living (or dying) with pain and discomfort. The issues are more complex than the circumstance of whether or not pain and/or discomfort are experienced.
I must say that I am not certain what “delusions of grandeur” have to do with the comments on this blog or with whether or not Mr. Smith “dodges issues” or “ignores points he doesn't like.” I also wonder why you chose the image of the Third Reich to characterize your view of Mr. Smith’s description of those who hold your viewpoint. If you have the inclination, please explain the use of that image.
Your claim that you are not as closed-minded as me causes me to wonder whether or not you actually understood my comment. As it is, your accusation of closed-mindedness suggests that you consider it closed-minded to notice or acknowledge alternate explanations, to reason effectively from particulars to conclusions, or to have intellectual subtlety. Specifically, your comment seems to indicate that you consider it open-minded to have the inability or unwillingness to examine presuppositions. Again, please clarify this interpretation. In addition, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term ad hominem. It refers to the rhetorical device of argumentation designed to appeal to the emotions or common situation of the audience. I used it in the emotional sense because, as I said previously, your arguments are centered on the desires and feelings of the individual rather than on any principle(s) of reason, however tempered with emotion.
I can see that we can make little progress in our discussion until we have some understanding of each other’s views on a variety of things including the nature of pain and discomfort, palliative care, desires and feelings, the nature of moral and ethical reasoning, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. You yourself have claimed to have presented evidence that the disabled community “as a whole” supports euthanasia, an assertion clearly contradicted by even one example to the contrary. (Mr. Smith has brought to light several, I think.) It remains true that the opinions of a large number of disabled individuals are only opinions, however factually they may be cited. In order to resolve any conflict there may be on these issues, we still need to engage in ethical and moral reasoning. So I again request some explanation and justification of your opinions.
Again, I say that you have overlooked the implied valuation that occurs in any bioethical decision. You have also overlooked the nature of the influence, if any, of a waiting period of any length on a person’s decision-making. You continue to dodge issues of your own, such as the nature of the autonomy you claim for us all. At the same time, you seem to believe that such issues as euthanasia should be decided democratically, suggesting the possibility that a person’s life or death may be granted in principle by democratic process. There is no category of rightness or wrongness evident in your comments. If there were, it would be obvious that a correct minority may justifiably proscribe certain actions.
Seeing these things would also reveal the basis of my suggestion that you may have trivialized the plight of those terminally ill with MND. If the categories of right and wrong are meaningful and relevant, to which Mr. Smith most likely agrees, then it does not represent trivialization to mention them in the context of the principled stance of some MND patients. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate to simply present any number of MND patients as evidence that right and wrong are irrelevant but that one’s desires and feelings are relevant, particularly with the aim of winning some rhetorical exchange.
“People deserve the right to own their lives.” This may be as clear an expression of your viewpoint as I have read. However, it does not follow that “if they don't, then they are owned by people like you.” The personal nature of pain does not indicate that people “own their own lives.” The fact that “no one chose to be born” is evidence of that. This is the same basic error that was revealed in your prior assessment of slavery. By the way, if you have the time, please explain your understanding of the role of tradition in all of this. What tradition are you referring to when you label one “archaic”? You are assuming a great deal concerning exactly who adheres to such a nameless tradition.
“If people aren't hurting anyone else, they should be allowed to do anything they want.” I cite this only to request once again that you make some sense of your comments on this blog. I understand from this that you believe the absence of pain and discomfort (hurting) to be the highest good and a sufficient basis for ethical and moral reasoning. Because this is the crucial issue in assisted suicide and potentially many other bioethical issues, please clarify your viewpoint.
The last paragraph of your most recent comment is filled with the type of rhetorical buzzwords I have considered unhelpful in our discussion so far. Your threats or predictions of social upheaval are certainly gruesome, but they do nothing to resolve the issues at hand. However, they have obscured your viewpoint so that it still remains for you to clarify what you mean apart from such confusion.
One of my best friend's daughter is named Winston.
"Because first things are first: Winston, I apologize for any offense I have caused by acting on the assumption that you are female. I never have heard of a woman named Winston, but I have also never heard of the surname Jen. I assumed your name was reversed to allow identification without compromising your privacy and opening yourself up to spam, if that is possible."
I see. No harm done.
"By new friends, I assume you mean that you have managed to alert others with a perspective similar to yours to my comment(s) on this blog. For that, I thank you. Please also let them know that, if any of them do wish to discuss these important issues calmly, I invite them to do so on this blog. On the other hand, I do take offense at the mockery in which you have participated by posting my comment on FSTDT. However, I am not surprised, given the general tone of your comments here. In the future, I request that you do your comrades a favor by referring them to the discussion(s) from which the comments come rather than filtering their reality for them. You owe that much to their right to autonomy, assuming in your view that they do have that."
If you had seen the comments section, you should also have seen a link that brings the viewer back to the discussion you were quoted in, so your accusation that I 'filtered the reality' of them is bunk. Claiming that palliative care is perfectly able to satisfy the needs of patients in all cases is bunk. Not everyone wants to be in a coma for weeks, or put to sleep while the doctors or hospice staff deceive others and hide behind the 'double effect' doctrine.
Now I'll address the rest of your points. I personally believe that pain is bad, but I would not want to die unless I couldn't deal with the pain. Everyone has the right to make their own choice.
We ARE slaves to ideologies if euthanasia is illegal (although it's essentially given tacit approval because almost no one is actually punished - suspended sentences are the worst 'punishments' meted out in Australia), because those who disagree with your views are forced to live by your views.
To make a fair analogy, if you wish to restrict people's access to euthanasia, you should restrict your own access to palliative care, thus losing a right that you care about.
And polls have shown that the disabled community as a whole, NOT THEIR LEADERS, support euthanasia more often than not.
Winston, I did see at least part of the comments section on FSTDT (clever title, by the way). What I saw was the opposite of the kind of "discussion" I hope we can continue to have on this blog. Although I did not see the specific comment referring readers to these discussions, I think my criticism stands, unless such a comment was submitted by you. If all you did was post a fragment of the discussion so that others could have a laugh, then you did "filter their reality."
I agree that the claim that palliative care is able to "satisfy" all patients is inaccurate. I don't know of anyone who seriously claims that palliative care eliminates all pain and discomfort in all cases. I hope you realize that isn't the point of the discussion.
Thank-you for clarifying some of your perspective. I also believe that pain is "bad," but I think we probably differ on the question of its meaning and significance in life (and death). I can't say whether or not I would want to live with uncontrolled pain, though, because I've never been in such a position. No one seriously suggests that individuals don't have the ability to decide things for themselves, although I suspect the bases of our respective decisions would be quite different.
The dispute has to do with their right(s), even with the very nature of rights, which opens the door wide to all sorts of foundational issues. Those are the issues I've tried to bring into our discussion because, whether we realize it or not, all statements such as "People own their own lives" and "Opinion is not the same as ethical judgment" are dependent upon those foundational issues.
I agree that we are slaves in some sense to ideology if euthanasia is illegal. However, we are slaves to ideology even if euthanasia is legal. That is the nature of things. The very existence of the world attests certainties with necessary implications for our lives. Hopefully, this discussion will be part of the process for us of bringing to light which ideology is proper.
Your "fair analogy" requires more explanation because of the enormous number of presuppositions underlying the statement. Polls reflect the opinions of individuals in the context of a particular mode of questioning. As a result, they require careful interpretation before they can even be considered plausible data. However, even if they are plausible, a collection of opinions does not amount to a basis for ethical and moral decision.
I eagerly await your further explanation of the basis of your reasoning. By the way, if you're looking for a name, call me Brad.
The idea medical killing is ever acceptable is insane. This isn't "freedom," or "autonomy," despite tons of propaganda from the "bioethicists," especially when we are talking about people's rights being violated when they can't make the decision themselves.
Who are people to decide whether another's life is worth living because of their disabilities? WHY are we talking about MONEY when health care should be a RIGHT regardless of illness or disability?
The bioethicists have done a tremendous con job on the public by couching the destruction of civil rights of the weakest as somehow being a "civil liberties" issue.
"Medical killing" may actually be sane, but it is all the more evil when chosen sanely. Although I believe it is to be rejected in all cases, I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between the various motives people may have in desiring it. The disabled and unable to decide could definitely become the victims of assisted suicide through someone else's decision, but those perfectly capable of deciding for themselves would claim a right to that choice in the name of autonomy. I think we could all benefit from consideration of the real meaning of our rights and whether or not we actually have the rights we think we have, whether or not it is even meaningful to claim some of the rights we would like to think we have.
Even the idea that we have a right to health care implies a whole lot of other ideas. I'm inclined to think that we do have that right, but I don't think it's essentially a political right. I think we have that right because it befits us as living creatures. Government and any laws it may enforce or mis-enforce is (in a sense very close to "ought to be")designed for us, not the other way around. Because we have that fundamental right, we claim that right under government.
Perhaps the reason there is such confusion on this issue is that there is also confusion concerning the purposes of government. The issue of assisted suicide is an example of the failure to distinguish protection of the innocent from permission to actualize human potential. Couple that with confusion concerning what our potential is and the erroneous conviction that we must all fall into one or another utilitarian category, and you have an explosive, complex issue like assisted suicide.
""Medical killing" may actually be sane, but it is all the more evil when chosen sanely. Although I believe it is to be rejected in all cases, I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between the various motives people may have in desiring it. The disabled and unable to decide could definitely become the victims of assisted suicide through someone else's decision, but those perfectly capable of deciding for themselves would claim a right to that choice in the name of autonomy. I think we could all benefit from consideration of the real meaning of our rights and whether or not we actually have the rights we think we have, whether or not it is even meaningful to claim some of the rights we would like to think we have."
So you want to take away a meaningful choice from people based on what you think is 'right' or 'moral'. As I have mentioned, it would be analogous to taking away a meaningful choice from you - pallilative care.
Your reasons against taking away the right to die are similar to the arguments against mixed-race marraiges. Do you honestly think that most people consider it a 'community value' to pry and interfere into people's private lives?
Susan: "The idea medical killing is ever acceptable is insane. This isn't "freedom," or "autonomy," despite tons of propaganda from the "bioethicists," especially when we are talking about people's rights being violated when they can't make the decision themselves."
No one in their right mind supports involuntary euthanasia, where the patient has indicated a desire to continue living. Where they choose to die, however, it IS a clear-cut case of the ultimate autonomy.
"Who are people to decide whether another's life is worth living because of their disabilities?"
That's not the issue. It's about whether the INDIVIDUAL decides their OWN LIFE is worth living. Why should quadraplegics be forced to live if they don't want to?
"WHY are we talking about MONEY when health care should be a RIGHT regardless of illness or disability?"
We're not, you brought up this red herring.
"The bioethicists have done a tremendous con job on the public by couching the destruction of civil rights of the weakest as somehow being a "civil liberties" issue."
Oh get real. Put your money where your mouth is, and become a quadraplegic with AIDS before you start complaining. Ghandi had some wonderful words of wisdom: "Be the change you wish to see in the world".
Lead by example. Put up, or shut up.
Winston, the choice you're referring to is meaningful. However, once again you've neglected a major point of this discussion. Specifically, you fail to recognize that there will be some limitation of choice whether or not assisted suicide is legal. In fact, whatever decision is taken will be taken on the basis of what someone thinks is 'right' or 'moral'. There may be some analogy between assisted suicide and palliative care, although the fact that each can be chosen by a given individual is not the same thing as determining whether or not either is ethical.
Because I say the things I do with some idea of right vs. wrong in mind, then it should be obvious to you that if palliative care is morally wrong then it should be abolished as well as assisted suicide. That's something you have yet to demonstrate, though. Indeed, you have yet to even make sense of your statements on these issues. The most you have done is reiterate your statements while accusing others of Nazism, bigotry, racism, slavery, and other evils, all accusations that seem meaningless due to your implied disregard for the idea of right vs. wrong.
You continue to assert some irresolute sort of "ultimate autonomy" for all of us, but you have not supported such a claim in the least. So I'll reiterate: Given that others on this blog are willing and have explained the bases of their arguments on these issues, please do that yourself so that we can actually have a helpful and meaningful rational discussion here. As it is, you seem to have nothing more to contribute than the repetitive observations that people do in fact decide to seek assisted suicide under some circumstances and that you believe this to be their right. Neither of these observations is under dispute, although the host of foundational issues surrounding whether or not people do have that right is under dispute.
That is good advice from Gandhi, and I suspect that's what all of us are trying to do on this blog. For one who focuses so monotonously on the individual's decisions, sincerity, desires, and feelings, it disappoints me that you are so quick to pass judgment on the motives of others, particularly in such a belittling manner. Perhaps you might lead by example in this way, unless the rational discussion we're trying to have here is not the kind of change you'd like to see in the world.
"Winston, the choice you're referring to is meaningful. However, once again you've neglected a major point of this discussion. Specifically, you fail to recognize that there will be some limitation of choice whether or not assisted suicide is legal. In fact, whatever decision is taken will be taken on the basis of what someone thinks is 'right' or 'moral'. There may be some analogy between assisted suicide and palliative care, although the fact that each can be chosen by a given individual is not the same thing as determining whether or not either is ethical."
Suicide and assisted suicide are individual choices. Forcing people to live makes as much sense as forcing people to die, and yet you don't seem to acknowledge this similarity. The way people choose to live or die is not your business.
"You continue to assert some irresolute sort of "ultimate autonomy" for all of us, but you have not supported such a claim in the least."
Yes, I have. Interference in personal decisions equates to forcing people to be the slaves to a worldview to which they do not subscribe, and yet you refuse to address this.
"That is good advice from Gandhi, and I suspect that's what all of us are trying to do on this blog. For one who focuses so monotonously on the individual's decisions, sincerity, desires, and feelings, it disappoints me that you are so quick to pass judgment on the motives of others, particularly in such a belittling manner. Perhaps you might lead by example in this way, unless the rational discussion we're trying to have here is not the kind of change you'd like to see in the world."
Get real. I'm not "forcing" anything on you by making assisted suicide legal. There is a difference between wanting that option to be in society, and forcibly making that decision for everyone else in society. If you want to restrict a choice for people, it would be logical and fair for them to restrict a choice for you, and I gave the example of outlawing pallitive care.
Also, do you think that terminal sedation, or slow euthanasia, is any different from a lethal injection? Both allow no chance for recovery, and both intend death, although they're not going to admit it.
http://www.vesv.org.au/Docs/A%20Tale%20of%20Two%20Deaths.doc
By "individual choices" do you mean that they are chosen by individuals or that these choices are distinct?
Your statement that "forcing people to live makes as much sense as forcing people to die" requires some explanation of your terms before it can be understood as meaningful. As I have said previously, it is difficult to imagine forcing someone to do what is natural for him to do without such force. You'll need to explain the similarity in a meaningful manner before it can be recognized.
Your statement that "the way people choose to live or die is not your business" is a reiteration of your anthem of autonomy. This is the key concept you depend upon, as we all know by now. However, you have not made sense of this concept; you simply use it to make other claims. You do not question it in itself to determine whether or not it is meaningful.
Whenever a law or rule of any kind is in force, there is the potential that those subject to enforcement may disagree with the worldview out of which the law or rule arises. If you have read my comments and understood them, you know that I have addressed this and have attempted to call you to address this as well. If I have not addressed it to your satisfaction, it is because we have not yet established a sufficient area of common ground to discuss it more fully, which is why I continue to request that you consider more clearly the foundation of your idea of autonomy.
To say that you are not "forcing anything on [me] by making assisted suicide legal" is an illustration of your lack of recognition of the inescapable position of a worldview in any legal context.
It is actually not logically necessary for there to be an exchange of choice restrictions in a society. It would be logically necessary if maintaining a society along agreed lines entailed that exchange by mutual agreement. However, that is not the sort of society we have, and I can't think of any in the world. If by fairness you mean an equal distribution of circumstances, then you should stop worrying about assisted suicide and spend your efforts attempting to pass legislation to ensure that all people suffer the same diseases, including terminal illnesses.
"Also, do you think that terminal sedation, or slow euthanasia, is any different from a lethal injection? Both allow no chance for recovery, and both intend death, although they're not going to admit it." The answer to this question that would be acceptable to you would require presuppositions you seem unwilling to examine. The statement following the question is not true in principle and is therefore an opinion of the kind that you have consistently substituted for reason on this blog.
Although this is not my blog, I encourage you to consider whether or not you wish to have the kind of rational discussion others want on this blog. If you do--and I hope you do--please engage others rationally and with civility. If you do not, please refrain from posting inflammatory or otherwise unhelpful remarks. You do no service to others with your viewpoint by posting such remarks.
" By "individual choices" do you mean that they are chosen by individuals or that these choices are distinct?"
Choices chosen by the individual. What else would I mean?
"Your statement that "forcing people to live makes as much sense as forcing people to die" requires some explanation of your terms before it can be understood as meaningful. As I have said previously, it is difficult to imagine forcing someone to do what is natural for him to do without such force. You'll need to explain the similarity in a meaningful manner before it can be recognized."
Oh, please. You are forcing them to live because they do NOT want to live any longer. Restricting their options to starvation or self-suicide is inhumane, and often causes them to die earlier, especially if they will not be able to do it themselves, such as happens with MND.
"Your statement that "the way people choose to live or die is not your business" is a reiteration of your anthem of autonomy. This is the key concept you depend upon, as we all know by now. However, you have not made sense of this concept; you simply use it to make other claims. You do not question it in itself to determine whether or not it is meaningful."
Can you think of any reason to restrict people from doing any action that does not harm others? You'd be a hypocrite if you complain about people taking away your choice to have palliative care.
"Whenever a law or rule of any kind is in force, there is the potential that those subject to enforcement may disagree with the worldview out of which the law or rule arises. If you have read my comments and understood them, you know that I have addressed this and have attempted to call you to address this as well. If I have not addressed it to your satisfaction, it is because we have not yet established a sufficient area of common ground to discuss it more fully, which is why I continue to request that you consider more clearly the foundation of your idea of autonomy."
The law is on the books, but if no one is getting punished in any meaningful sense after admitting 'guilt', what is the point of having the law? Anyone can just claim that they were killing someone by consent, and the jury would acquit them.
"To say that you are not "forcing anything on [me] by making assisted suicide legal" is an illustration of your lack of recognition of the inescapable position of a worldview in any legal context."
You're insane. There's a huge difference between 'forcing' someone to live in a society where the option is there, and making the most personal decision possible for them, without their input or consent.
"It is actually not logically necessary for there to be an exchange of choice restrictions in a society. It would be logically necessary if maintaining a society along agreed lines entailed that exchange by mutual agreement."
There is no mutual agreement - it's one-sided tyranny on unwilling victims.
"However, that is not the sort of society we have, and I can't think of any in the world. If by fairness you mean an equal distribution of circumstances, then you should stop worrying about assisted suicide and spend your efforts attempting to pass legislation to ensure that all people suffer the same diseases, including terminal illnesses."
No, I think everyone should have the same choices - the right to say "YES" to assisted suicide, as well as "NO".
""Also, do you think that terminal sedation, or slow euthanasia, is any different from a lethal injection? Both allow no chance for recovery, and both intend death, although they're not going to admit it." The answer to this question that would be acceptable to you would require presuppositions you seem unwilling to examine. The statement following the question is not true in principle and is therefore an opinion of the kind that you have consistently substituted for reason on this blog."
The only difference between slow euthanasia, quick euthanasia and death from refusing treatment is the time taken. That's it. The intended outcome is death, and that is what happens, unless you forcefeed them, or the cancer leaves by itself (HA!).
Winston, you wrote: ‘Choices chosen by the individual. What else would I mean?’
Actually, you could mean a number of different things. You could’ve meant what you’ve said you meant. You could’ve meant that the choice of suicide is not exactly the same as the choice for assisted suicide. You could’ve meant that the choices themselves are without certain contextual connections. There may be other possibilities, but my point is made. Thanks for the clarification.
For one to be forced to live, one must be caused to live by another. The nature of living organisms is to live, obviously enough. So there is no force applied in allowing one to do what would be done naturally. Alternatively, you seem to be identifying being forced to live with being restrained from suicide. If you can’t distinguish between those two arrangements, it is probably because the default condition in your philosophy is the flight from pain and discomfort as ultimate evils. Because of that idea, the most natural response to the two, which are part of life, is abandonment of life, otherwise known as death.
You wrote: ‘Can you think of any reason to restrict people from doing any action that does not harm others? You'd be a hypocrite if you complain about people taking away your choice to have palliative care.’
Your question here relies upon a number of presuppositions, including that one can detect harm in most if not all cases. Of course, in order to detect harm, one must know what it is, which means that one must render a value judgment concerning harm and benefit, neither or which you seem to wish to do. Assuming that there is absolutely no harm to others, I would have to say that there would be no reason to restrict actions that do not harm others. However, the existence of such cases is one of the grounds of this debate. Please identify, if you are able, at least one instance of such an action that results in absolutely no harm to others. The statement after your question is not strictly related and can’t be addressed meaningfully without an answer to the preceding question.
You wrote: ‘The law is on the books, but if no one is getting punished in any meaningful sense after admitting 'guilt', what is the point of having the law? Anyone can just claim that they were killing someone by consent, and the jury would acquit them.’
You fail to understand the basis of law in relation to a transcendent standard of morality and ethics, presumably because you don’t acknowledge such a standard. Without such a standard, there is no reason to enforce any law. In fact, the very idea of law is meaningless without a standard. Laws that aren’t enforced consistently or at all are no less just because of those deficiencies. You would have to understand and believe that laws are passed for reasons that don’t change because of their enforcement in order to understand the point of any law.
Your hypothetical jury is actually an illustration of my point: When laws are subject to interpretation according to the barest opinions of those subject to them, such that one can be acquitted simply by postulating another opinion, then we really do have a situation where law in principle is pointless. Far from undermining my point concerning the law, that confirms what I’m saying. Such pointless laws represent the core of your political philosophy.
You wrote: ‘There's a huge difference between 'forcing' someone to live in a society where the option is there, and making the most personal decision possible for them, without their input or consent.’
There’s the old rhetoric again concerning ‘forcing’ people to live. Actually, as you’ve defined it, albeit with a nonsensical definition, you can’t even say that there’s a difference. As you’ve defined things, the ‘forcing’ you’re referring to is identical to contributing to the making of a decision regarding someone’s end of life care.
You wrote: ‘There is no mutual agreement - it's one-sided tyranny on unwilling victims.’
Aside from the transparent rhetoric in this statement, you’re right to say that there isn’t such a mutual agreement. As a result, your suggestion of the appropriateness of such an exchange is silly.
You wrote: ‘No, I think everyone should have the same choices - the right to say "YES" to assisted suicide, as well as "NO".’
More silliness, Winston. Everyone does have the same ‘choices’ in the meaningful sense that all people have the right to form and express opinions. Because opinion is not the determinant of morality and ethics, the same old distinction you fail to recognize, there is no problem here. On the other hand, it’s foolish to think that all people will, can, or should all have the same circumstantial options in the myriad situations they face. Look around; life is much more complex than that.
You wrote: ‘The only difference between slow euthanasia, quick euthanasia and death from refusing treatment is the time taken. That's it. The intended outcome is death, and that is what happens, unless you forcefeed them, or the cancer leaves by itself (HA!).’
It would be more accurate to say that the only difference you’re able or willing to recognize is the time taken. Those are consistent catches for you, though, your failure to recognize any distinctions between deaths and the meanings of life and death in terms other than biological activity. Your fundamental presuppositions are the reason you fail in these regards.
Sorry, I took a long time to get back to this posting. I had thought the conversation had moved on to more recent postings. At any rate, thank-you. I find your objections very helpful to my arguments.
Post a Comment
<< Home