This Blog considers assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, radical environmentalism, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
See the truth of the euthanasia movement: Despite talk of "medical models," this is the true face of much of the grass roots euthanasia movement. More how to commit suicide classes. Philip Nitschke, who will be a faculty member, supports suicide for troubled teens. And many a dead teenager has been found to have committed suicide with the aid of Derek Humphry's book Final Exit.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:21 AM
11 Comments
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
11 Comments:
Perhaps if pro-lifers stopped treating depressed teenagers as 'attention seekers' and 'mentally ill', perhaps they would be less likely to commit suicide.
Also, stop supporting politicians in the Australian Liberal Party. They cut the palliative care budget and claim to be compassionate.
Also, it is utterly hypocritical and nonsensical to prohibit discussion of suicide methods on the internet when discussion of how to commit murder is NOT curtailed.
Paragraph 1. Haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Paragraph 2. Shame on them.
Paragraph 3. I am glad Phillip Nitschke had to take a powder from Australia. Someday, maybe, he will be in jail.
Note to all: See, the death on demand crowd exists. They see suicide, for whatever reason, as a fundamental right of liberty. It is a dangerous and radical individualism that abandons those most in need of a compassionate and loving community.
How is it compassionate to force people to live and suffer? People own their own lives. It seems that the pro-slavery group is alive and well. You'd never admit this, but you want the same choice that I do - your decision is just going to be different. But you also claim the right to make that decision for everyone else, and FORCE them to choose life. That is arrogance at its extreme, and paternalism at its worst.
Paragraph 3: Say what now? Now it's my turn to be confused.
I think there many terms that we could benefit from defining here....
We need not force anyone to do that which is natural for him/her to do, namely to live. Assuming that the suffering referred to is not caused by those allowing a person to live naturally, there is no lack of compassion involved. On the contrary, there is the promotion of the natural life we all have, and there are many avenues through which to help to alleviate suffering in the world and in people's individual lives.
Aside from any rhetorical devices, no one can know whether or not anyone wants the "same choice" as he/she does, but he/she can attempt to defend his/her right to some principle of "autonomy." To say that so-called "pro-lifers" simply want to claim the right to make "that decision"--whatever it is--for everyone else is false. Assuming what is meant is the decision to exercise some nebulous form of autonomy, it would be ludicrous to claim the right to exercise autonomy itself on behalf of another. Perhaps it indicates an even more extreme arrogance (or paternalism) to attempt to force thoughts into someone's mind and out of someone's mouth when those thoughts are contrary to their express opinions.
Concerning autonomy further, does the presence of suffering in one's life actually represent an assault on one's autonomy? If so, is there no other way to defend oneself against suffering than to end one's life? To defend our right to autonomy, must we really believe that it is proper to limit all further exercise of autonomy by committing suicide? What is the basis of our right to freedom from suffering? Does such a right even exist? Does autonomy even exist as a right?
By the way, paternalism in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. A just and worthy authority by nature governs others and possesses and exercises the right to regulate conduct, gratify desires, and supply needs. That is very close to the basis of just and worthy government. To reject authority simply because it is an authority external to oneself is anarchical on one hand and totalitarian on the other, depending on whether or not you happen to be in authority yourself.
It is not a rare opinion that we could use more just and worthy parents in our world. Indulgence in the quest for an irresolute autonomy is the opposite of such "parentalism" only when it does not subvert the orientation toward authority that is natural and fitting in mankind. This is something it cannot do, though, as confirmed by an appeal to the authority of any viewpoint, "pro-life" or otherwise.
Winston misses so many points. But she is consistent: death on demand. If you suffer, suicide is fine and we should help. Heartless since people can be helped, people change their mind, and it sends an insidious message about the worthlessness of human life if it is difficult.
My point in responding to your third paragraph was that I thought you were referring to Nitschke fleeing Australia. If not, I haven't a clue about what you meant.
There is no 'obligation' for society to assist, but those who assist should not be punished. Suicide is legal, therefore, it is nonsensical for assisted suicide to be illegal.
People with motor neurone disease live longer when they can get assistance. If they cannot be helped to die after they lose the use of their arms, they'll be sentenced to a torturous, slow death by suffocation. Some people with MND have agreed to kill others with MND on request, and the PR ramifications of prosecuting them would be a nightmare for the pro-lifers.
And yes, I was referring to Nitschke being forced out by Australia's draconian laws regarding the discussion of suicide methods. It seems that they want people to kill themselves violently. Here come the terminally ill suicide bombers, particularly likely as the baby boomers are beginning to turn 60.
I also don't understand why you oppose embryonic stem cell research. It's either use them for research or throw them in the incinerator, as they are surplus embryos that are not going to be used for IVF anyway.
Every decision is a potentially bad precedent. To say that society is not legally or formally obligated to assist the suicidal is not the same thing as saying that society should have no qualms about promoting such assistance. From what I understand, suicide is actually illegal, unless that has changed in recent years. It is/was illegal because it is characterized as "self murder."
You do not seem to have a clear idea when it is appropriate to commit suicide. Why should one not commit suicide upon diagnosis? Why should one not commit suicide upon realizing her genetic predisposition to disease? Why should one not commit suicide because of the mere fact of her mortality? You may suggest that one should be at liberty to decide when to commit suicide, but even then you have yet to establish that one does indeed have the right to such a decision on the basis of an autonomy that has yet to be legitimized.
None of your examples actually deal with the crucial issues. They simply represent a convenient rhetorical way to attempt to force others to agree with you. Please be careful not to practice the same paternalism you condemn in others.
People with motor neurone disease don't die a "torturous, slow death by suffocation" when they receive proper care and shame on you for saying they do. They die peacefully in their sleep.
Motor neurone disease (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease) is a terrible affliction and is often used as the bloody flag to scare people into accepting euthanasia.
My last hospice patient, who had ALS, would have some choice words for you, Winston Jen, and they would not have been to thank you, either.
"Every decision is a potentially bad precedent. To say that society is not legally or formally obligated to assist the suicidal is not the same thing as saying that society should have no qualms about promoting such assistance. From what I understand, suicide is actually illegal, unless that has changed in recent years. It is/was illegal because it is characterized as "self murder.""
And this is nonsensical, and inaccurate. Since when have people been charged and jailed for suicide, even in a country as socially backwards as the United States? Self-murder makes as much logical sense as "self-rape" - none at all.
"You do not seem to have a clear idea when it is appropriate to commit suicide. Why should one not commit suicide upon diagnosis? Why should one not commit suicide upon realizing her genetic predisposition to disease? Why should one not commit suicide because of the mere fact of her mortality? You may suggest that one should be at liberty to decide when to commit suicide, but even then you have yet to establish that one does indeed have the right to such a decision on the basis of an autonomy that has yet to be legitimized."
Why haven't I? Slavery is categorically immoral, and it has been rightfully outlawed for centuries. It logically follows that people own their own lives. YOU are the one who has not addressed this issue. Would you want people dictating to you what university you can go to, or who you can marry? If not, then live your life and let me live mine, thank you very much.
"None of your examples actually deal with the crucial issues. They simply represent a convenient rhetorical way to attempt to force others to agree with you. Please be careful not to practice the same paternalism you condemn in others."
Since when have I advocated paternalism for anyone? There's a significant difference between wanting people to have the OPTION of euthanasia and making people live by YOUR decision. You don't have the right to make personal decisions like life or death on behalf of other people. And yes, I disagree with the 'futile care' theory, because the wrong people are making the decision for someone else. THAT is a clear example of paternalism.
"People with motor neurone disease don't die a "torturous, slow death by suffocation" when they receive proper care and shame on you for saying they do. They die peacefully in their sleep."
Tell that to Diane Pretty and her husband.
"Motor neurone disease (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease) is a terrible affliction and is often used as the bloody flag to scare people into accepting euthanasia."
Actually, in most Western countries, the vast, VAST majority already support and accept euthanasia. Like it or not, in Australia you and your ilk are outnumbered by more than 2 to 1.
"My last hospice patient, who had ALS, would have some choice words for you, Winston Jen, and they would not have been to thank you, either. "
Ah, he/she must have been an anti-choice advocate, and a follower of 'misery loves company'. Yes, that is in poor taste, but it is in even worse taste to dictate decisions for the rest of society. Giving people a choice is not.
Those who successfully commit self-murder are not typically charged and jailed for obvious reasons. Formal charges and jail time are not the criteria by which one determines whether or not something is illegal, "even in a country as socially backwards as the United States."
Actually, self-murder and self-rape cannot really be compared in the manner you may hope. Consider the definitions of the basic crimes on which the self-afflicted versions are based.
I agree that "slavery is categorically immoral," although it is debatable how long it has been "outlawed" and in what forms it currently exists. However, it does not logically follow that "people own their own lives." The proposition that slavery is evil can only address the question of whether or not one human being may or can "own" another. It says nothing concerning whether or not a given human being "owns" his own life.
I assume you want me to say that I wouldn't want others to dictate my university and my spouse. If you mean by "dictate" that I would disagree with their choices for me, then of course I wouldn't want them to dictate these things for me. However, if that's all you mean by the word dictate, then why ask the question in that way? Why not let it be heard as the folly it is by asking "Would you want something you wouldn't want?" The answer is obvious and unhelpful.
Again, you have not addressed some of the crucial issues involved in assisted suicide and now other challenges. The reason I say this is that your objections to what Mr. Smith has posted on this blog have to do with personal desires and feelings exclusively. In other words, you make so much of the idea that pain is bad and that pleasure is good that you fail to consider the nature of good and bad and their relations to a host of other issues, including how one is to interpret their presence in his life.
The facts are that I do want you to "live your life" and that I do want you to "let me live mine." However, I also want you be able to examine and understand life in general, which is why I encourage you to seek more than rhetoric on these issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home