Clueless Oregon Should Connect the Dots
This is so ironic I would laugh out loud, were it not so tragic. Oregon is upset that it has a high rate of elder suicide. Yet, amid the wringing hands, no one seems to get that the state itself, by legalizing physician-assisted suicide--sends an insidious message that suicide is fine and dandy in some cases. Despairing people, particularly with health issues, get that point and may think, if it's okay for the cancer patient, why not also for me?
The first step in reducing suicide is prevention efforts in all cases. But don't expect Oregon to get that simple point.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:36 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Strange. Australia does not have assisted suicide or euthanasia, but our suicide rate among the elderly eclipses our teenage suicide rate.
So what's your point, if any?
Gee, how perverse the idea "freedom" has to do with the "freedom" not only to kill oneself but also have doctors do the deed.
Man, don't you even understand medical killing has NOTHING whatever to do with civil liberties to civil rights?
My post should read "or" civil rights.
Winston, would you care to speculate concerning why that is?
BAP - because the elderly in Australia are fiercely independent and they don't want to be told what to do - whether it be politicians, religious leaders or doctors.
" So what's your point, if any?"
My point is that people aren't looking for justification from society when they commit suicide, especially if they are old.
"Gee, how perverse the idea "freedom" has to do with the "freedom" not only to kill oneself but also have doctors do the deed."
Gee, how perverse it is to dictatethat quadraplegics and people with MND cannot get help to die, forcing them to either starve to death or commit suicide while they can still move their arms.
In case you haven't noticed, not a SINGLE DOCTOR is forced to assist in jurisdictions where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal.
"Man, don't you even understand medical killing has NOTHING whatever to do with civil liberties to civil rights?"
Tell that to vets who euthanize pets. Not only that, but pet owners get jailed for cruelty if they do NOT euthanize suffering pets.
Tell that to doctors who practice slow euthanasia, or terminal sedation, usually without legal consequence. And don't say that 'palliation doesn't kill', because large quantities of morphine (often used in terminal sedation) DOES kill.
Winston, you've answered only part of my question. What do you think about the teen suicide rate in Australia? Why do you think the suicide rate among the elderly is so much higher than that of teens? How much higher is it?
The answer you did give is purely speculative and was probably given because it would make the most sense of other things you've said. You still haven't touched the issue of whether or not opinions, however strongly held, are a sufficient basis for ethical and moral decision-making. Even if it is granted that the elderly of Australia are fiercely independent--which according to your answer may be the same as being favorably disposed toward suicide--you haven't dealt with the question of whether or not their decisions to commit suicide are ethically or morally sound.
Please understand that I'm not asking whether or not the elderly hold the opinion that suicide is a legitimate option. I'm also not asking whether or not some of the elderly do in fact choose suicide. I'm also not asking whether or not suicide is legal in Australia or even whether or not it should be voted on or simply left open to individual choice. I'm simply asking now, and have been throughout our interaction on this blog, for your evaluation of the ethical and moral basis of assisted suicide and suicide in general, by extension. Is there something beyond the unexamined presupposition that "people own their own lives," which means basically that people take ownership through the decisions they take based on their opinions?
You're struggling for a cause, just as I am. Presumably, you believe your cause to be the right one. Based on your previous avoidance of this crucial question, I'm beginning to interpret your efforts to be more like support of something for the sake of supporting it or to oppose something else than support of something because it is ethically and morally right to do so. Surely, you believe there to be some standard of ethics and morality. Otherwise, why bother to engage others on this issue? Why bother to fight for legalization of assisted suicide? Why not instead simply encourage people to do what they want when they want? Why vote? Why not abandon the whole political process and support the establishment of anarchy if there is not standard?
I fight because I don't want other people to make decisions on my death - that is the most personal of decisions, and most people agree. Some people only care about their own rights, and don't care if others get their choices restricted via legislation against euthanasia.
Referendums may fail, but public opinion is still strongly in favour of the concept of euthanasia - they do not believe in leaving (or forcing) people to stay alive against their will. If that wasn't the case, then there would be more court cases where doctors and relatives who commit euthanasia would be found guilty by juries, but that rarely happens. Judges rarely give out more than token suspended sentences in Australia. The book "What Happened to Freda Hayes" narrates an example, where the doctor was acquitted in record time for a murder trial.
The reason why refusal of treatment is not acceptable to many people is because it is slow. It is just as certain as suicide by euthanasia in many cases, particularly those where a respirator is removed, or artificial feeding is stopped.
Winston, please correct my perception if I'm wrong. You seem to be saying that you fight for euthanasia/asisted suicide rights in order to preserve that right for yourself, not necessarily for the benefit of others, except where your right may imply that right for others.
In all of this, it seems you think that opinion is the determinant of morality and ethics, an individual's opinion on the personal level and the majority opinion on the societal level. Is this your opinion?
I'm still interested in the answers to the questions having to do with the relations between opinion and morality and ethics. Am I correct in assuming that you don't actually care whether or not euthanasia/assisted suicide rights are morally or ethically sound? Is it correct to say that you simply want what you want, regardless of the moral or ethical implications?
If you actually don't care about the morals or ethics of euthanasia/assisted suicide rights, then I'd have to ask again why you would bother to try to convince others of your viewpoint. If opinion is truly what matters here, then why care what the law says?
BAP, the law makes it difficult for patients to get sufficient pain relief, because doctors fear prosecution, even if they would probably get acquitted - no doctor would want the negative publicity .
The link to Australia's suicide rates, per age group - http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/a61b65ae88ebf976ca256def00724cde?OpenDocument
SELECTED AGE GROUPS
The following section presents summary statistics for both males and females in selected age groups. In addition, graphs of selected age-specific rates are included to show trends over 1993-2003.
Age-specific rates are also presented in Tables 2 and 3. It is important to note that small numbers of suicide deaths in specific age and sex groups contribute to fluctuations in age-specific suicide death rates from year to year.
15-19 years age group
"In this age group, in 2003, suicide accounted for a total of 113 registered deaths, corresponding to age-specific rates of 12.7 for males, 3.6 for females and 8.3 per 100,000 for persons. This rate (for persons) was lower in 2003 than for any year in the previous decade (1993-2002).
Suicide accounted for 19.9% of total male deaths and 13.1% of total female deaths registered in this age group, in 2003."
"65-74 years age group
In this age group, in 2003, suicide accounted for a total of 161 registered deaths, corresponding to age-specific rates of 19.4 for males, 4.7 for females and 11.9 per 100,000 for persons.
Suicide accounted for less than 1% of total deaths registered in this age group, for both males and females, in 2003."
"75 years and over age group
In this age group, in 2003, suicide accounted for a total of 132 registered deaths, corresponding to age-specific rates of 22.9 for males, 3.2 for females and 11.1 per 100,000 for persons. This rate (for persons) was lower in 2003 than for any year in the previous decade (1993-2002).
Suicide accounted for less than 1% of total deaths registered in this age group, for both males and females, in 2003."
Winston, thanks for the link to the suicide stats. My questions are still on the table in front of you.
Which law(s) are you referring to? Are these laws in themselves problematic? Or is the absence of an assisted suicide/euthanasia law the problem? I encourage you to be more proactive in aiding efforts at increasing the availability of pain relief rather than reactive in seeking the legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia. That way, you would be helping to ease pain and discomfort in living people approaching death, in which cases there can be the experience of benefit, rather than ceasing pain and discomfort in such people by ending life, in which cases there can be no experience of benefit.
I realize that would require a shift of worldview on your part, which is no small change for anyone. However, I think it would make sense of suffering itself. The presuppositions you take are actually the reasons you do not make this change in your thinking, but if you never take the opportunity to examine them, you can never be aware of any basis for your own thoughts.
I'm open to the possibility of that change for myself, although I am confident in my viewpoint, but we can't even have a discussion if all of those foundational issues continue to be ignored. In that case, you'll have responded to your own earlier objection that this blog lacks representation of your viewpoint. It lacks that representation because, as you continue to demonstrate, your viewpoint may not have the rational resources to engage the roots of the issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home