Assisted Suicide Goes Down to Deserved Defeat in CA
I was in France when word came through that AB 651 had failed in the California Senate Judiciary Committee. Splendid news. I was so pleased that Senator Joseph Dunn, the Democratic committee chair, came down on the side of true compassion and patient care by voting no to assisted suicide. When I testified at the informational hearing, it seemed to me that he was genuinely struggling with the issue, which gave me great hope. And sure enough, the more he learned, the less he seemed to support the bill. Good for him.
Praise for this important victory goes to the wonderful political strange-bedfellow coalition that joined to oppose the bill, made up of disability rights activists, medical and hospice professionals, pro lifers, advocates for the poor, Catholics, civil rights activists, and others.
Unfortunately, the defeat was not a proverbial stake through the heart of assisted suicide in California. I fully expect the bill to be back again soon. Assisted suicide advocates believe deeply in their cause and are funded by deep pockets. But if they do, the coalition will regroup and hopefully prevail again.
Until then: Onward.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:45 AM
25 Comments
25 Comments:
You haven't won anything. I have a suggestion on how to get euthanasia regardless of the law.
1. Bring a gun to the hospice. Threaten the staff with death if they do not euthanize you.
2. Ironically, they would be protected (from the law) because the patient would be coercing them, and therefore, they would not be held legally culpable.
Wesley, if you yourself ever end up in a hospice, I hope you get treated like this:
Ethical Ways to treat Pro-lifers in Hospices
1. Administer a paralytic drug to the anti-choicer, while being sure they can still breathe on their own. This will prevent them from screaming in pain while feeling every ounce of their pain.
2. Close their eyes to give visitors, family and carers the false impression that they are not in pain.
3. Cease administering the drug every week to let them speak, and see if they still believe in “life at all costs.”
You know your opinions would hold a lot more water once you have been in the same situation.
How about you try being paralysed in a hospital bed dying from brain cancer slowing turning into a vegetable who can't even shit for themselves or feed themselves. Constantly in unbearable pain.
Then we'll see if you're still echoing these unthought out simple minded religious beliefs.
There ARE situations where assisted suicide is a very good option. And there are situations where it is not.
It is about choice and not discimination.
Thank you, Winston for making no sense at all.
If you're willing to kill someone to kill you, then why not shoot yourself?
The only problem is the mess and the legal problems with any estate you may have, but if you're dead you don't have to worry about it
In fact, any sort of suicide works about the same way doesn't it?
You just want validation for something that is morally abhorrent but also self-defeating.
Why do those who already have Death need to be given it?
Threatening others so that may do you harm or wishing torture on those who have decided on a difficult course anyhow is just sick.
Robert, thank you for your ad hominem attack and lack of arguments.
I don't want to shoot myself because it might not work, and I would end up in a worse situation than terminal illness.
The terminally ill want control over their death. I doubt even YOU would want a so-called 'natural' death from cancer or AIDS.
Also, regarding your comment on "harm", Robert. Harm is subjective. Release from extreme pain through death is not harm from the patient's viewpoint - death is the price they are willing to pay. They are NOT willing, however, to die slowly and painfully.
Also, harm is often done in medicine, most notably in organ transplants, chemotheraphy and radiotheraphy. If doctors were really following the oath, they would not engage in these kinds of harm, even if the patient wanted it.
Robert, answer the actual argument hey?
He was making a similar argument to the one i made. That is pro lifer's are not in a position to judge the morality of the situation until they have been in the same situation and understand like the rest of us do that there are situations where it is the best option for a patient with no quality of life.
You know, just recently here, my family was faced with a decision about whether or not to keep a loved on alive.
The loved one, was our cat. Our cat had been here for all of us, for the last 12 or so years. Our family had several cats, but this one was special, because he was the only one out of the five we had that had been able to survive suburban living. He was smart enough to avoid traffic, kids and people in general, and for the most part was totally cool. He helped us get through the passing of my mother, and has kept our family company, and given us comfort for many years, so much so, he was almost an equal member of the family.
It had become obvious that the poor guy had developed some type of internal problems, possibly cancer, and that his quality of life was degrading every day. He began to act very different, as well as stop eating almost entirely, and it was obvious to us all, that he was in his last days with us, and seemed to be suffering quite a bit.
After days of deliberation, and personal struggle with the issue, we all agreed that it would be best for him, if we ended his suffering as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Now obviously, I realize there is a large difference between putting an animal down and putting a human down, but the feelings for those involved in either situation are very much the same, and the effects are sometimes equally devastating.
I have always believed that for myself, I would rather remove myself from society before I am forced to endure months, years, or a life of suffering. I have long had the belief that no matter what, I would always save a bullet for myself, should it come to the point I felt I was ready to depart this world, but my body wanted to continue living.
It escapes me, how people who love someone, or something so much, could stand by idly and watch them suffer pain, loss of self-esteem, often times the loss of sanity. It escapes me even more, how someone who loves someone, and that person they love communicates they "want" to die to them, how they dismiss it even though they watch them suffer every day. They place some sort of learned moral obligation, above the person they love so much, often times much of their life.
My question is this.......
To those of you who are AGAINST the legal ability to choose euthenasia, how many of you have had pets that you were close to that needed to be put down, but you didn't because of your personal beliefs? If you did put the animal down, why do you sanction it for pets, but not humans?
Pets cannot even communicate with us verbally. The only communication we have with pets is the meanings we "attribute" to their actions. How can someone personally decide to terminate a living being, animal or man, that can't communicate in any way their desires to live or not, yet turn away from a human being who CAN communicate their wishes to die?
I support the right to abortion.
I support the right to euthenasia.
I support the concept that man is his own individual master.
Is there ONE person in here who is against abortion, against euthenasia, but has made the decision to put a loved one (animal or human) down?
One of the things that brings this question up to me, is that I have watched many a "good" Christian put many a horse down.
I agree, while it is very hard to put a loved one to death and to deal with that loss. I think it is morally abhorent to disregard doing the right thing for that person because you don't know how to deal with it yet.
Or worse you are trying to press some learned moral lesson on them which isn't even true in the first place.
You already have the "right" to kill yourself. The sticking point is getting the medical profession involved.
We can't do this as a civilized country because of the potential for abuse.
It simply isn't "your" choice, but it will be the "choice" of the medical establishment, the insurance companies, and others having vested interest in saving on health care costs.
Why are people so dense about this issue?
"You already have the "right" to kill yourself. The sticking point is getting the medical profession involved."
So? The medical profession already does it, even if they vehemently deny it. And when have you ever heard of a DOCTOR who died painfully from cancer or MS, hmmm?
"We can't do this as a civilized country because of the potential for abuse."
Tell that to the Netherlands and Switzerland. The incidence of UNconsented euthanasia is lower than the rate in Australia:
http://www.saves.asn.au/resources/facts/fs21.htm
The study revealed that in 30% of all Australian deaths, a medical end-of-life decision was made with the explicit intention of ending the patient's life. Only 4% were in response to a direct request from the patient. The authors of the Australian study conclude that:
"Australian law has not prevented doctors from practising euthanasia or making medical end-of-life decisions explicitly intended to hasten death without the patient's request."
"It simply isn't "your" choice, but it will be the "choice" of the medical establishment, the insurance companies, and others having vested interest in saving on health care costs."
With a properly funded health care system, money won't be a problem.
"Why are people so dense about this issue?"
Look who's talking. All you are doing is forcing people who can afford it to go to Switzerland to see Dignitas. Those who can't will die violently, because they don't trust palliative care.
Winston, the simplistic view you've taken of a variety of issues stems from the failure to recognize and deal with the complexity of situations and arguments and the importance of resolute language. Those problems are reinforced by the hostility you direct toward others, as you refuse to allow agreement with any less than all of your views, and immediately and unequivocally at that. To some extent, this is true of all of us by nature as human beings, but you've consistently displayed only these things. That fact that you do so without shame in ever greater measure is a significant demonstration of the fundamentally evil character of your viewpoint. You're squandering the measure of limited autonomy you do have with such hatred. Please consider that well.
Well, if you won't respect my right to choose when and how to die, why should I respect your right to die naturally, pray tell? Respect is a two-way street.
Wesley, its not exactly obvious to me what you're cheering about, probably because it isn't obvious what the objection to assisted suicide is in the first place.
It seems to me like, in the interest of maximizing happiness and the satisfaction of interests, then it would be prudent to pass an assisted suicide bill. Then, the people who want to end their own lives can do so, and the people who wish to continue can do so; the alternative, where assisted suicide is blocked, seems to put an unnecessary burden (to the point of torment) on those who have no more interest in their own life anymore.
I don't see how blocking the bill minimizes harm or maximizes the satisfaction of interests at all, so I don't understand what you're cheering about.
-- Yahweh
Winston, the question of respect implies knowledge of a standard by which respect is measured. Reality is what it is ultimately, and our respect or lack of respect for anything or anyone reflects a measurement against reality. Our respect for something indicates something of our assessment of the soundness of that which we respect, its correspondence to reality.
I would 'respect' your right to choose when and how to die if you had that right, but that is the issue under dispute. I would consider you to have that right if all people have that right, given that you are not of any exceptional moral status. Again, I ask you to explain the basis of the 'right' (the ultimate moral autonomy) you are claiming.
To answer your question concerning why you 'should' respect the right to die naturally, consider that you yourself have noted that it is a right to die 'naturally.' It is the 'nature' of people to die eventually. Because of that, it is a 'right' in the sense that it is fitting and to be expected. It is also 'natural,' as you've said. So your respect for that right is going to involve the proper recognition of the fitness of that arrangement, that we all die by nature. If you choose not to respect that right, then please explain how that right is not real.
The fact is that respect is a 'two-way street' in that people either do or do not respect each other's views. In that case, our disagreement is deeply rooted and not likely to change in the near future. However, that is very different from claiming that one person's respect requires a reciprocal respect from someone else on any issue. We are not trading respect as a commodity; we are discussing reality.
"You know your opinions would hold a lot more water once you have been in the same situation.
How about you try being paralysed in a hospital bed dying from brain cancer slowing turning into a vegetable who can't even shit for themselves or feed themselves. Constantly in unbearable pain."
OK, peterj, I'll bite. Paralysed? Yep, I'm effectively quadriplegic. Getting worse and gradually dying? Yes. Can't feed myself? Check. Can't shit by myself? Check. Soon won't be able to breathe on my own, either. No pain yet (other than the occasional open, bleeding pressure sore) but it's coming.
And guess what?
I oppose legalizing euthanasia.
Why? Mainly because hard experience has taught me that too many in both the medical profession and society at large see no value in my life and the lives of others in similar positions. Not only giving others the power to end my life, but also setting up an entire institutional structure geared toward that end, is dangerous and foolish in such a situation.
Euthanasia supporters who have not "been in the same situation" envision a clearheaded patient who gets all the medical, material, familial, and social support he needs choosing with complete freedom to be euthanized by competent medical staff who have no agenda of their own but are simply pliant tools of the patient's will. I know from my own experience that is an utterly naïve daydream only held by those with illusions about their own power and independence.
Robert, you unwittingly illustrate my previous point in your example about euthanizing animals. The only case you mention is a beloved pet being put to sleep by its caring family who don't want it to suffer. But what is actually the most common case of animal euthanasia in our society?
Abandoned pets killed by the local pound when their time runs out.
Euthanasia would never simply involve a patient in isolation -- it will inevitably be intertwined with the rest of society, good and bad alike. Or to put it another way: Strays are not only in animal form, and they have no guarantee of any better treatment.
BAP:
"To answer your question concerning why you 'should' respect the right to die naturally, consider that you yourself have noted that it is a right to die 'naturally.' It is the 'nature' of people to die eventually. Because of that, it is a 'right' in the sense that it is fitting and to be expected. It is also 'natural,' as you've said. So your respect for that right is going to involve the proper recognition of the fitness of that arrangement, that we all die by nature. If you choose not to respect that right, then please explain how that right is not real."
Well, of course we have the right to die naturally. Almost no one wants to die naturally of cancer or AIDS.
So, if you won't let me end my life painlessly if I'm suffering from cancer, give me one reason why I should let YOU die naturally (which is a choice), when you won't let ME hasten the end?
And when morphine "races" against cancer to cause death, the morphine always wins.
"The fact is that respect is a 'two-way street' in that people either do or do not respect each other's views. In that case, our disagreement is deeply rooted and not likely to change in the near future."
What I was saying was that if you don't leave ME alone, you cannot reasonably expect me to leave YOU alone. QED.
"However, that is very different from claiming that one person's respect requires a reciprocal respect from someone else on any issue. We are not trading respect as a commodity; we are discussing reality."
And it is realistic to subscribe to "Live and let die." Respect my wishes and I'll respect yours.
Good for you, Bernhardt. Now, why should ALL quadraplegics be forced to stay alive simply because you want them to?
If euthanasia and assisted suicide were legal, the patients would have the power to decide whether or not THEIR OWN LIVES are worth living, not the doctors.
And when you consider that they'd make more money by keeping you alive, it's highly unlikely that they would want to kill you.
Winston Jen: "Good for you, Bernhardt. Now, why should ALL quadraplegics be forced to stay alive simply because you want them to?"
When did I say I want to "force" people to stay alive? If you want to kill yourself, go ahead and do it -- if you really want to, you can always find a way, even if euthanasia remains illegal. Why should the sick and disabled be placed in jeopardy simply so you can have someone else kill you in your preferred way?
"If euthanasia and assisted suicide were legal, the patients would have the power to decide whether or not THEIR OWN LIVES are worth living, not the doctors."
I'll repeat myself: The real world simply isn't going to be your ideal of completely free agents determining their lives. For someone who expends so much energy ranting about the "evil" interests in the world, you are remarkably optimistic about such things.
"And when you consider that they'd make more money by keeping you alive, it's highly unlikely that they would want to kill you."
Wrong. I'm nothing but a liability to insurance companies, overextended hospitals, and government programs. Are you oblivious to the actual debates over euthanasia in bioethics? The utilitarians think people like me *should* be encouraged to do ourselves in precisely to spare society these costs.
Why should I be limited to violent methods of suicide? Why should I have to travel to Switzerland?
I'd say that suicide by cop is better - forcing the police to kill me by shooting random people. But that would hurt innocent bystanders, so I wouldn't do it. I don't want to travel to Switzerland, and I don't see why I should have to.
The sick and disabled are in more jeopardy now - doctors hasten their deaths, often against their will, and they are not prosecuted. Kevorkian helped over 100 patients before being jailed.
http://www.saves.asn.au/resources/facts/fs21.htm
The study revealed that in 30% of all Australian deaths, a medical end-of-life decision was made with the explicit intention of ending the patient's life. Only 4% were in response to a direct request from the patient. The authors of the Australian study conclude that:
"Australian law has not prevented doctors from practising euthanasia or making medical end-of-life decisions explicitly intended to hasten death without the patient's request."
"I'll repeat myself: The real world simply isn't going to be your ideal of completely free agents determining their lives. For someone who expends so much energy ranting about the "evil" interests in the world, you are remarkably optimistic about such things."
The same could be said about the state of palliative care - in a 2002 Australian poll, over 1200 respondents from three states responded to a question which asked whether they thought that palliative care was sufficient. Only twenty-three percent replied in the affirmative. This highlights the need for urgent reform - palliative care funding increased significantly after the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was passed in the Northern Territory ten years ago.
A better question you should be asking is: "Why would I advocate the torture of those people who wish to remain in hospice care that don't support my convoluted views on life?" It damages the credibility of your arguments when you make terroristic claims against those who don't share your opinions, but then again... you haven't demonstrated much maturity throughout your career on Wesley's blog.
Wesley, it's clear that you are very remiss in not changing your carefully-thought-out and deeply-held beliefs because Winston wants you to. Just as doctors are wrong if they don't want to be murderers, because Winston wants them to be.
Laura, if suicide is murder, mastubation is rape, surgery is assault, and chemotherapy is poisoning.
If doctors were really so keen on "no harm", they wouldn't separate siamese twins connected at the heart or brain.
They routinely help their colleagues to die and cover it up. If you're going to oppose euthanasia, at least be consistent and investigate them. Don't let them hide behind the "double effect excuse" - you can't tell what a person's intentions were.
It is a very strange world you live in, Winston. You should not be surprised at other people who don't want to join you in there.
PeterJ, you seem to believe that experience is not only the best teacher, but that it's the only teacher. You state that belief when you claim that one should have to be in the position of suffering in order to understand the inherent 'rightness' of assisted suicide. The radical problem with that line of reasoning is that a person can't even hold that opinion without first having been in the position you're referring to. I don't mean currently suffering or previously suffered. In order to hold your opinion along with the idea that experience is the only teacher, you would actually have to have died by assisted suicide. Obviously, that's ridiculous, given that you're participating in this discussion. Obviously, people can hold well-reasoned opinions without having experienced the situations pertaining to their opinions.
Like Winston Jen, you forget that we're having a discussion here concerning certain areas of dispute. At a minimum, that means in part that it isn't going to help us to stall the discussion by reiterating your viewpoint until everyone believes it. That would rule out the disagreement in principle, not promote an intelligent discussion.
You seem to think that religion is behind all of this. Would you care to speculate as to how that could be true? If experience is the only teacher, how can you believe that without being what you would call religious and believing the opposite? How can you offer any moral judgment, whether 'true in the first place' or not, if there is absolutely no reality being referenced by the kind of reasoning you label 'religious'?
What do you think the 'moral lesson' is that some are describing? Can you state it accurately without putting words in anyone's mouth? If that 'moral lesson' is not real, then is there a moral lesson you'd like us to learn? What is it? Is morality even meaningful when it is determined by opinion? Conceivably, there could be as many ethical schemes as there are people. Let's evaluate them.
You said: "There ARE situations where assisted suicide is a very good option. And there are situations where it is not." Surely you realize that that's simply a restatement of your viewpoint rather than an argument in favor of it.
You also said: "It is about choice and not discimination." Exactly. That's what others here with the viewpoint opposite to yours have been saying.
I encourage everyone commenting on this blog to take a step back for a bit to seriously consider the implications of what you are saying. If we can agree to have a reasonable discussion of the issues here, particularly the subjects of Wesley's postings, that's great. Otherwise, those who are not really willing to do that are wasting others' time and would be better served taking part in the mockery on sites like FSTDT.
Post a Comment
<< Home