AB 651: Language Perversion by Promoters of Assisted Suicide
Advocates for assisted suicide know that when their agenda is described accurately and descriptively--they lose. So, they are ever about the task of trying to come up with new gooey euphemisms to describe assisted suicide--to be, if you will, the sugar that helps the hemlock go down.
Latest case in point: AB 651 in CA. The assisted suicide legalization bill has been amended to use even more perfumed language than before to describe assisted suicide. The bill used to authorize terminally ill adults to "make a request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner."
But, apparently even that boilerplate of assisted suicide bills is too graphic. The bill now reads,"...make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to this bill to provide comfort with an assurance of peaceful dying if suffering becomes unbearable." Of course, unbearable suffering isn't defined so the term is rendered meaningless and becomes whatever the suicidal patient deemed it to be.
Why the change? Probably, the sponsors of this horrible bill are either trying to fool some harried legislators into believing they are just voting for improved comfort care, or they are providing cover for lawmakers who want to vote for the bill but don't want to admit they are supporting assisted suicide. Either way, it is pathetic and a classic example of why the American people have such a low regard for the legislative process.
In any event, I am testifying in front of the California Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow at an "informational" hearing on the bill. I can't discuss the particulars of AB 651, but am supposed to get into how assisted suicide might impact our perception of the value of human life. I'll post my testimony when a link becomes available.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:33 PM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
Wow that is sneaky.
"...make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to this bill to provide comfort with an assurance of peaceful dying if suffering becomes unbearable"
That reads like it could be a description for palliative medication and care, rather than assisted suicide.
Is there a possibility that the language will get so flowery and euphamised that it will no longer mean "assisted suicide" but palliative care, not serve its original end ?
Nope. But that's what they want you to think.
I agree, they want us to think "assisted suicide" is just another one of many viable treatment options to choose from. I question how a lethal dose of medication prescribed intentionally by the same medical professional who is supposedly trusted to provide care for the patient, ever can truly treat the patient's suffering?
What is dignified about taking a prescribed overdose of medication?
Whether assisted suicide (or whatever flowery statement used by the legislature to hide the true meaning of the words) is from a legally prescribed handful of pills or from a friends gun, how is that not someone causing or providing the agent of another human beings death?
Both as a nurse and as a person with a chronic debilitating disease, I think people should never suffer needlessly . But I see no need to kill the patient in order to kill the pain, even when the patient does not know where and how to obtain the resources to control their suffering.
Sounds more like they're just trying to make the bill more restrictive in what it permits.
They're getting the phrase “if suffering becomes unbearable” in there, making it clear that the bill only permits medication in the case of “unbearable suffering,” and not upon any whim of the patient. How much of a limiting factor that becomes is, of course, dependent on how the courts interpret “unbearable suffering,” but it does at least appear to be an attempt to create some limitation.
Of the other changes, “comfort with an assurance of peaceful dying” isn't really that much more flowery or euphemistic than “ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.” (Hell, the former actually contains the word “dying.”) I'm not sure what “prescribed pursuant to this bill” translates to in legalese, so it might just be extra verbiage. Or it might in some way limit the types of medication made available in response to the patient's request to those somehow identified elsewhere in this bill; I don't know.
Palliative care involves terminal sedation quite frequently. Death that results as a consequence is due to the morphine, not the disease. But the palliative care profession doesn't want to acknowledge this, because they think that they can relieve all suffering without euthanasia. They cannot.
Many patients think that "if I'm going to be in a coma until I die, I might as well get it over with."
And, "When I wake up, it feels like I've got a lead weight on my head."
mg israel, simply HAVING the lethal drugs gives a great peace of mind to the patient, and they live longer as a result, instead of committing suicide six months early to avoid being shoved into a hospice.
I take such instances of language manipulation to represent the inherent dishonesty of the assisted suicide advocacy movement. Still, they've owned up to the fact that humane-ness and dignity are not really their aims. Instead, the pleasure:pain balance is key. Comfort is key, regardless whether or not humane-ness and dignity are sacrificed.
To utilize an undefined term such as unbearable suffering doesn't support the soundness of law. It undermines it by establishing an uncontrollable precedent based upon an ambiguity. There's a great danger of surrendering to peoples' whims if more legislation like this is passed, which would undermine the basis of government itself.
Winston, you're making the same old assertions again. I can't think of any reasonable person involved in palliative care who seriously thinks that all pain and suffering can be relieved. I certainly haven't encountered that viewpoint on this blog, at any rate. It's time to realize that and move on to constructive discussion.
Your other comments are the same old expressions of opinion that you've always thrown out there. No one's disputing that some people do in fact have the opinions or desires you've mentioned time and again, and to continually confine our thoughts to that fact is unhelpful.
One of many areas addressed by advocates against assisted suicide and euthanasia is the issue of the correction of desires, the rectification of desires that have gone awry. Along these lines, your insistence that such help constitutes paternalism or forcing other people to think in a certain way is hollow because it misses the point again. That objection assumes that people can't be corrected or aided to see things differently or to have always thought differently about certain things, which is the opposite of the case being made by opponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia. You've elevated opinion as a substitute for morality and ethics. As a result, you're unable or unwilling to understand the broad implications of the corrective and preservative changes that are being discussed by culture of life advocates.
As I've said before, I understand what you're saying about the so-called peace of mind that can come from the availability of lethal drugs. However, please realize that that idea is actually a result of the same hollow objection I just mentioned. There would be no so-called peace of mind with the availability of lethal drugs if people were to understand life and death differently from what has been called the culture of death.
That's a crucial point because we're trying to have a discussion here to promote and explore the far-reaching implications of that beneficial change in our society. Until you recognize the difference between these two modes of thinking about life and death and begin to think and discuss with the wisdom that follows from that recognition, at best you'll be a distraction to others who are engaging in the discussion. At worst, you'll demonstrate by contrast the real differences of thought between the cultures of life and of death, and those who will engage honestly in the discussion will not find your viewpoint attractive.
bap:
"I take such instances of language manipulation to represent the inherent dishonesty of the assisted suicide advocacy movement. Still, they've owned up to the fact that humane-ness and dignity are not really their aims."
No, autonomy and respect for the patient's wishes are paramount. Stop assuming that all patients are depressed.
You can look at their charter here - http://www.dwdvictoria.org.au/LegislativeCharter.html
(DWDV does not support the following:
Assisted or supported death for individuals who are not suffering a terminal or incurable illness causing profound suffering, nor for people who are unable to properly document their choice in a state of mental competence.
A publicly-available “peaceful pill”.)
"Instead, the pleasure:pain balance is key. Comfort is key, regardless whether or not humane-ness and dignity are sacrificed."
While you're at in, please don't assume that we are hedonists who would commit suicide because of a paper cut.
"To utilize an undefined term such as unbearable suffering doesn't support the soundness of law."
The patient defines it. It's an individual decision.
"It undermines it by establishing an uncontrollable precedent based upon an ambiguity. There's a great danger of surrendering to peoples' whims if more legislation like this is passed, which would undermine the basis of government itself."
Says he who never goes through pain. If you've ever taken a panadol or an anaesthetic to have a tooth removed or for surgery, you have no logical basis to complain.
"Winston, you're making the same old assertions again. I can't think of any reasonable person involved in palliative care who seriously thinks that all pain and suffering can be relieved. I certainly haven't encountered that viewpoint on this blog, at any rate. It's time to realize that and move on to constructive discussion."
Then they shouldn't let the patient suffer. The shouldn't have to be scared of prescribing mass amounts of morphine. Pain relief is more important than keeping the patient awake.
"Your other comments are the same old expressions of opinion that you've always thrown out there. No one's disputing that some people do in fact have the opinions or desires you've mentioned time and again, and to continually confine our thoughts to that fact is unhelpful."
You haven't given anything new, either. I'll post a large rant at the end of this post.
"One of many areas addressed by advocates against assisted suicide and euthanasia is the issue of the correction of desires, the rectification of desires that have gone awry."
Then you should stop people from asking to be starved to death. After all, they get put into a coma right away, removing any chance of them changing their mind.
"Along these lines, your insistence that such help constitutes paternalism or forcing other people to think in a certain way is hollow because it misses the point again. That objection assumes that people can't be corrected or aided to see things differently or to have always thought differently about certain things, which is the opposite of the case being made by opponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia."
In other words, assuming that they are being depressed and condeming them. Next.
"You've elevated opinion as a substitute for morality and ethics. As a result, you're unable or unwilling to understand the broad implications of the corrective and preservative changes that are being discussed by culture of life advocates."
You mean "Live at all cost" advocates. No thank you. I'd rather shoot Wesley J Smith if I were in a hospice than listen to his drivel.
"As I've said before, I understand what you're saying about the so-called peace of mind that can come from the availability of lethal drugs. However, please realize that that idea is actually a result of the same hollow objection I just mentioned."
It's not hollow. The peace of mind allows the patient to hang in there for longer, sometimes allowing them to die naturally.
"There would be no so-called peace of mind with the availability of lethal drugs if people were to understand life and death differently from what has been called the culture of death."
Yeah, right. People fear pain more than death. If you were realistic, you would recognize this.
"That's a crucial point because we're trying to have a discussion here to promote and explore the far-reaching implications of that beneficial change in our society. Until you recognize the difference between these two modes of thinking about life and death and begin to think and discuss with the wisdom that follows from that recognition, at best you'll be a distraction to others who are engaging in the discussion. At worst, you'll demonstrate by contrast the real differences of thought between the cultures of life and of death, and those who will engage honestly in the discussion will not find your viewpoint attractive."
I'd rather own my own life than have others dictate to me that I must die "naturally".
Now for the rant:
We are in a democracy, and the pro-lifers are outnumbered on this issue by more than 2 to 1. Forcing the terminally ill to live is not going to save a life, which is where it differs from abortion (although forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term can be likened to forcing healthy people to donate blood every three months, or to donate a lung or kidney).
Therefore, pro-life Australian should accept that the public want it, and leave us alone. I'm not trying to make him use euthanasia. I want it as an option if I need it. Limiting end of life options forces people to commit suicide while they are still able - they've researched hospices, and they do not want to end up like these people:
http://www.dwdvictoria.org.au/RealStories.html#SteveGuest
http://www.exitinternational.net/esther_wild.htm
http://www.exitinternational.net/maxwell_bell.htm
A bishop's view on why assisted suicide is morally and ethically right - http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/Address-Bishop_Spong.htm
I would encourage you to listen to the radio clips and read the pages so that uou can be more intellectually honest. I don't think you'd win any euthanasia debates with your current frame of mind.
The only reason why those cases aren't more widespread is because many terminally ill individuals manage to end their lives before it becomes too bad.
I have seen the other side of the argument, and I don't think it holds any water. http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=11377
For example, Wesley J. Smith believes that people have a duty to live so that other people can appear compassionate. I find that deplorable and abhorent in the extreme - that argument treats people as mere means to whatever ends he has in mind, instead of treating people as rational beings with rights. Life loses much of its meaning if it is made compulsory, and such paradigms are likely to increase despair, depression and suicide.
And if suicide is always immoral or irrational, then we would have to condemn the victims of 9/11 who jumped out of the windows instead of staying to die "naturally." Sometimes, suicide can be a rational decision that chooses one form of death over another. Devoutly religious people have been known to do a backflip and beg for death when they are in the hot seat at the end of life.
I didn't mention this on the phone, but the worst thing about terminal sedation is that doctors can do it even if you don't ask for it, and even if you say you don't want it. Medical paternalism prevails over patient autonomy. Why should people not suffering decide for the individual? Palliative care staff hide behind the doctrine of double effect, saying that they "only" intended to relieve the pain. But in reality, hastening death is the same as causing it, because cancer can take an excrutiatingly long time to actually kill the patient. It's not something that you can minimize like collateral damage in war - adequate dosages of morphine WILL cause death - there is no question about it. Letting (i.e. causing) people die in pain is the greater "sin".
Also, there is more euthanasia in Australia than the Netherlands, because it is unregulated, and no one reports the doctor, because it is generally done in a very clandestine manner. Look at how long it took to imprison Kevorkian - and he helped over 100 patients who went to him - not the other way around.
http://www.saves.asn.au/media/210606_will_our_mps_face_the_facts.pdf
"I call upon Hon Andrew Evans MP to face the facts. Andrew Evans quotes a Netherlands survey that showed 1000 lives ended without request. The survey reports these were patients who were near death and clearly suffering grievously.
A replica of this survey in 1995 showed that Australia had a rate 5 times higher. In a 2001 survey of Australian general surgeons 1.9% reported assisting a suicide and 4.2% reported having acceded to requests for voluntary euthanasia. Australian law has not prevented doctors from acceding to requests for an assisted death or making medical end-of-life decisions explicitly intended to hasten death without the patient’s request.
Our doctors are shamefully forced to criminal action in following their duty of care.
A majority of our MPs have ignored, wrecked or railroaded the past 5 voluntary euthanasia bills presented here since 1995 – against the wishes of 76 -79% of South Australians, including majority support by Christians.
Can our MPs imagine themselves or their loved ones as ‘one of that 5-10%’. How would they feel?"
Lastly, I'll mention the edited photograph (http://server2.uploadit.org/files/HyugaHinata-HospicePatient2.jpg). It makes two points. Firstly, most people detest being preached and/or lectured to about the "inherent benefits" of suffering by people who are not in their position.
Secondly, it shows that the terminally ill really do have nothing to lose - if they slaughtered a hundred people (which would probably be pro-lifers), they'd be dead before any trial, although the satisfaction might let them live for a few extra weeks or months.
Winston, I've never assumed that all patients are depressed, nor do I assume something as ridiculous as the "paper cut equals suicide" mentality.
On the other hand, you've consistently assumed all along that autonomy and opinion are paramount, yet you've never offered any rationale in support of those assumptions, despite having been asked many times. If autonomy and opinion can be shown to be paramount, I think we should all agree to your assumptions. Will you not even try to explain your viewpoint instead of simply reiterating it?
As it is, it appears to many of us who have opposed your viewpoint on this blog that you can't account for the relations between autonomy and opinion and the good, which is a primary consideration in ethics. The fact that you continually call our attention to statistics, which are themselves subject to interpretation, and emotional pleas, threats, and accusations serves to confirm what I've been communicating to you, that your viewpoint is a mere assertion based upon other assertions with potentially no grounding in reality. If there is a grounding in reality, please explain it. If not, at least realize that we're bound not to agree with you because we're acting on principles that are grounded in reality.
In addition, you have yet to account for your concern for the law. If you were to carry your assertions to their logical conclusions, I suspect you would no longer be interested in the legality (or lack thereof) of assisted suicide. According to your own ideology, if such a practice is illegal, then the law should be broken to allow for it. If I'm incorrect about your basic idea, please let me know. Otherwise, at least acknowledge that so that we can understand better where you're coming from.
This discussion can't really continue as a discussion without a viewpoint from you. If yours is undefined, I can understand. Thanks for your time. If yours is defined, please let us know what the definition is.
This is my evidence for the importance of autonomy - the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal and readiliy available, which allows people to drink and smoke themselves to liver failure and an early death.
If you really cared about preserving life, you'd outlaw these activities, which would extend life longer than stopping patients at the end of life from taking a lethal elixir.
Winston, that's exactly the kind of 'evidence' you've put forth throughout our interaction so far. Do you realize that your 'evidence' for the supremacy of undefined ultimate autonomy is actually based upon things that are themselves opinion, even if collective opinion sufficient to legalize alcohol and tobacco use? That's a demonstration of my criticism that your basis is always claimed to be in things which themselves are subject to debate. Is there nothing stable you can point to to which all reasonable people can agree?
All reasonable people agree that there are more important things than preserving and prolonging life at all costs. You don't see too many people calling for compulsory blood or organ donations now, do you? It can be said that free will and voluntary compassion is more important than saving lives.
Reasonable people can only agree to your statement when life and its preservation and prolongation are understood in particular meaningful ways. Even if that statement is true, it does not follow that ultimate autonomy is substantiated. The issue of compulsory donation pertains to the acceptability of particular manifestations of transcending ideals that people hold. The prevalance of such particular practices may say nothing concerning the acceptability of those practices. Are such practices as you've mentioned and as we've been talking about in general warranted and justified? If they are on the basis of your claim to ultimate autonomy, can you explain this basis, including an account of its warrant, justification, and relation to the good? Free will and voluntary compassion, which may be related to free will, are among the debatable issues in these ethical discussions.
I'm mostly confused as to why "ultimate autonomy" is being discussed. Let's break down what "autonomy " and look at the consequences. Autos (greek)- self, nomos (greek)- law. Autonomy means "self law." So, wouldn't an "autonomous" being create himself at will? Would he or she be above the economy? Would they dictate social norms, and morals to lesser beings? Wouldn't they be able to choose when and where they interacted with the rest of reality?
The fact that we were born against our will, have to take part in economies of all kinds, fail to influence the moral judgment of others (i.e. winston), and are goverened by the laws of the universe disproves autonomy. Winston, perhaps your terminology should be differnt as I have just refuted you forthrightly... you argument isn't about autonomy.
It's also a wonder why you keep on bringing up the idea of pain, implying that there are some people who have not gone through excruciating circumstances. A rather odd point, because you obviously have had no experience with debilitating suffering; otherwise, you'd obviously be dead. Perhaps you wouldn't be one to lecture us on pain and suffering eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home