British Medical Association Rejects Assisted Suicide
In preparation for trying to convince the House of Lords to legalize assisted suicide, a small rump group in the BMA pulled a ploy that got the organization on record as neutral to legalizing PAS. But now the membership has weighed in and come out strongly against legalization. With the BMA now firmly opposed to assisted suicide, virtually all medical associations in the world, other then the Dutch and a few other ethical renegades, agree that killing is not a medical treatment. Great news that should put the stake to the heart of the Joffe Bill in the UK.
That's two pieces of great news since I began my holiday. I should go on vacation more often.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:54 AM
32 Comments
32 Comments:
Winston, you're speaking without knowledge again. You don't know the consciences of others, and you haven't established that the 'profession' is such an artificial person as to have the 'desire' you're claiming for it. Your last statement is beside the point, as usual.
In anonymous surveys, most doctors support euthanasia.
When placed under the peer pressure of the medical establishment, they tow the party line.
You still haven't given any valid reasons as to why people don't or shouldn't own their own lives.
People DO "own" their lives if they want to take their own lives. Doctors are NOT supposed to be in the business of killing people but in the practice of healing.
Why don't you get it? This has NOTHING to do with some nutball notion of "liberty."
Why don't YOU get it? If I became terminally ill and wanted to die, why should I do it by myself? Why should I be forced by bigots such as yourself to die EARLY?
People with access to the drugs live longer -
"Comfort of knowledge
What people often do not realize is that, for many, just knowing how to kill themselves is itself of great comfort. It gives them the assurance to fight harder and therefore often extends lives just a bit longer. Many people have remarked to me that my book, 'Final Exit' is the best insurance policy they've ever taken out. Once such people know how to make a certain and dignified deliverance, with loved ones supporting them, they will often renegotiate the timing of their death.
For example, a man in his 90s called to tell me his health was so bad he was ready to terminate his life. I advised him to read 'Final Exit,' which he did and he called me back. He had managed to get hold of lethal drugs from a friendly doctor and so everything was in position.
"So what are you going to do now?" I asked him.
"Oh, I'm not ready to go yet," he replied. "I've got the means, so I can hold on a bit longer."
Now he had the knowledge, the drugs, and encouraged by the control and choice now in his grasp, he had negotiated new terms with himself concerning his fate. Surely, for those who want this way, this is commendable and is in fact an extension rather than a curtailment of life's span."
Why should I be forced to die either violently or painfully, when doctors never do. They assist one another.
Be thankful that the pro-choice movement isn't as bloodthirsty or in love with pain as YOU and your ilk are.
The fact that Wesley hasn't been killed by someone recently diagnosed with cancer shows that the terminally ill are better people than he is.
BTW, that quote was from http://www.finalexit.org/essay_why_i_believe.html
Winston, I've said plenty on the question of whether or not people own their own lives, generally in the context of asking for your basis for the claim that we have the ultimate autonomy you keep mentioning. You made the claim; I only objected. You initiated the question; you should establish your case. I hope you're not planning to neglect the issue by redirecting the question to someone else. I'd still like to learn from you what your basis is.
The notion of morality implies some objective standard, regardless of our disagreements as to what that standard might be. If you reject the notion of such a standard, then you have no reason to claim it is wrong to deny someone the opporunity to end his own life; 'wrong' would be meaningless. You also have no reason to 'obey' any laws, let alone those governing assisted suicide; 'obedience' would be meaningless. In fact, you have no basis for the reality of your perceived 'self' because such a perception presupposes a reality of a particular nature and character, which would be denied by your rejection of an objective standard of morality.
Rejection of an objective standard of morality makes nonsense of any claim to moral reasoning because no terms can be defined in any way other than by their practical opposition to one another. This is very much what you've attempted to do by your continual reliance on opinion. You've only expressed opposition ad nauseum with no basis offered. I suspect you've been in retreat from the possibility of recognizing that lack of basis. Please, come back to the issue and begin to discuss it by offering some rationale for your assertions.
Regardless what individual physicians have done, it is significant that a formal position and the precedent set by such a position have been established. I take that to represent the better judgment of the BMA on the issue, even if some physicians will have sleepless nights over it.
If people don't own their own lives, then life for many individuals is made meaningless. Life that is compulsory is meaningless for many.
If people don't own their own lives, then does the state? Is suicide immoral because it removes a productive worker from the state? Should I be able to buy Wesley J Smith and torture him to death? I don't think so, despite what half of me would like to do.
Winston, do you realize what an obnoxious jerk you've unfailingly been during your entire time on this blog? That's twice now in as many days that you've wished harm on Mr. Smith. And *we* are the uncompassionate ones?
Try a little more civility from now on, if for no other reason that it might encourage people to actually take you seriously.
If I wish harm on Mr. Smith, it is to teach him some empathy. He doesn't seem to have suffered as much as a paper cut in his life. He probably wanted to do this, too:
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g153/winstonjen/wesleyhitler.jpg
I would have to say that the principle irony of the last comment was the whole hearted support the Nazi's gave to doctors in their quest to decide what was Lebensunwertes Leben and their "compassionate" movement.
But I don't really expect sense or reason from anti-lifers.
Winston, life for those people can only be perceived as meaningless by those who define life in a way that is incompatible with the plain fact that we're not entirely autonomous. Once again, you're attempting to force agreement by hiding your assumption behind an emotional appeal. Life isn't 'compulsory' in the sense you're claiming.
I know this may stimulate yet another rant from you, but the state doesn't own people's lives either. Suicide may remove a 'productive worker' from the state in some cases, but that isn't necessarily relevant.
Of course, you shouldn't be able to 'buy' anyone. The desire to subject others to slavery that is revealed by that remark is not surprizing, given the lust for destruction and death you've communicated.
It's no justification to say that you're trying to teach someone empathy. Your threats simply don't have that character. They're destructive, not constructive. I wish you a long life and a peaceful death, that you might learn the proper empathy through the wisdom you may gain in your old age.
BAP, if you wish me to have a peaceful death, please stop getting in the way of assisted suicide.
That is the only way for everyone, not just doctors and the wealthy, to have access to a peaceful death.
Thank you.
Winston, I still do wish that for you, although you misunderstand what I've said. I didn't stop at the simple wish that you live a long life and have a peaceful death. What I went on to say concerning 'proper empathy' is not unrelated to the kind of societal changes many of us have been discussing all along, the kind of changes that are based upon the knowledge that many of the things we currently oppose in our society are precisely the kinds of things that would be eliminated in a society composed of people with a different paradigm from what's been called the culture of death.
The questions we're dealing with essentially define life and death and peace and virtually everything else. The society envisioned by a culture of life would not see assisted suicide as peaceful because the length of or termination of choice of a person's life is not the only consideration. You obviously don't agree with that viewpoint, I know, but in your thinking you're in bondage to the inability or unwillingness to hear another view without superimposing your own viewpoint over it. The result is that you hear only what is, by definition according to your view, not true.
In other words, you presuppose your view to be correct and fault others for their disagreement, never admitting to yourself that the disagreement is the point of the discussion. Is a meaningful solution really to be found in simply presupposing that one viewpoint is correct, apart from even the possibility of relevant evidence and argumentation? If you believe so, then as I've said before you really aren't having the same discussion as many of the rest of us have been.
Well said BAP.
Winston Jen: "If I wish harm on Mr. Smith, it is to teach him some empathy. He doesn't seem to have suffered as much as a paper cut in his life. He probably wanted to do this, too:" [all-too-predictable Hitler reference]
Typical. Thanks for further proving my point about your attitude, and yet again demonstrating your immaturity. If you want some credibility around here, stop giving such ridiculous and hateful responses.
"Winston, I still do wish that for you, although you misunderstand what I've said. I didn't stop at the simple wish that you live a long life and have a peaceful death. What I went on to say concerning 'proper empathy' is not unrelated to the kind of societal changes many of us have been discussing all along, the kind of changes that are based upon the knowledge that many of the things we currently oppose in our society are precisely the kinds of things that would be eliminated in a society composed of people with a different paradigm from what's been called the culture of death."
I'd rather be with Doctor Death than Doctor Pain. Half-assed palliative care is as good as none at all.
"The questions we're dealing with essentially define life and death and peace and virtually everything else. The society envisioned by a culture of life would not see assisted suicide as peaceful because the length of or termination of choice of a person's life is not the only consideration."
But the "Culture of Life" evades responsibility by hiding behind the doctrine of double effect while still causing death.
The fact of the matter is that morphine wins the race - it kills the patient by hastening death before a natural death from cancer can occur.
"You obviously don't agree with that viewpoint, I know, but in your thinking you're in bondage to the inability or unwillingness to hear another view without superimposing your own viewpoint over it. The result is that you hear only what is, by definition according to your view, not true."
I have heard other viewpoints. The notion that people have a "duty" to live so that others can be compassionate is abhorrent. That paradigm treats people as mere means to an end, not as ends in themselves.
"In other words, you presuppose your view to be correct and fault others for their disagreement, never admitting to yourself that the disagreement is the point of the discussion. Is a meaningful solution really to be found in simply presupposing that one viewpoint is correct, apart from even the possibility of relevant evidence and argumentation? If you believe so, then as I've said before you really aren't having the same discussion as many of the rest of us have been."
I have not come across any valid anti-choice arguments on this issue. And besides, you're not saving lives. You're just increasing suffering and pain.
"Winston Jen: "If I wish harm on Mr. Smith, it is to teach him some empathy. He doesn't seem to have suffered as much as a paper cut in his life. He probably wanted to do this, too:" [all-too-predictable Hitler reference]"
Well, he did say that people have a duty to live so that others can be compassionate. That's rather selfish of him.
Wesley would torture someone to death if he could arrange for someone else to save them at the last minute, thereby being "compassionate".
"Typical. Thanks for further proving my point about your attitude, and yet again demonstrating your immaturity. If you want some credibility around here, stop giving such ridiculous and hateful responses. "
I found it a rather effective way to display Wesley's true motives.
"Winston Jen: "If I wish harm on Mr. Smith, it is to teach him some empathy. He doesn't seem to have suffered as much as a paper cut in his life. He probably wanted to do this, too:" [all-too-predictable Hitler reference]"
Well, he did say that people have a duty to live so that others can be compassionate. That's rather selfish of him.
Wesley would torture someone to death if he could arrange for someone else to save them at the last minute, thereby being "compassionate".
"Typical. Thanks for further proving my point about your attitude, and yet again demonstrating your immaturity. If you want some credibility around here, stop giving such ridiculous and hateful responses. "
I found it a rather effective way to display Wesley's true motives.
Winston, I thought you said previously that the comfort vs. pain issue was not crucial but that ultimate autonomy (which you don't defend) is. Why do you prefer "Doctor Death" if you would also deny the depressive and nihilistic character some have pointed out in the 'culture of death' perspective? Are you saying that you would prefer not to live life than that it should be a certain 'unacceptable' way? What determines your acceptance or rejection of it? This would be a good time to come up with something to say regarding the basis of your claimed ultimate autonomy.
Your criticism concerning what you've called the 'double effect excuse' is hypocritical. You've said all along that ultimate autonomy and opinion are supreme in these matters. Now you're saying that the opinion and intent of palliative care promoters is not important.
Another faulty portion of what I assume is your basis for the criticism is that death #1 equals death #2. This is actually the same old issue of your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between deaths, which you are constrained not to do in order to remain nominally consistent with your doctrines.
These issues are more complex than you recognize, but it seems you require simplicity rather than complexity to hide that ideological handicap. A sounder view would be one that allows you to recognize, even embrace, that complexity while still maintaining the integrity of your viewpoint. That sounder view is what those of us who work toward a 'culture of life' are discussing here.
If the compassion of others is irrelevant in the cases we're discussing here, then you have no reason to claim it for yourself. Your label of "duty of live" is an error that arises from your failure to maintain consistent and reasonable definitions of terms like duty, rights, etc. Even if anti-assisted suicide advocates are claiming some form of duty to live, which they do not seem to be, what is the basis for your absolute claim that such a notion is 'abhorrent' if personal opinion defines everything?
I suspect your failure to come across 'valid anti-choice arguments' may be consistent with your track record here of intellectual disingenuity. You've repeatedly attacked others without even a pretense of rational discussion. That alone causes me to doubt the truth of your judgment of 'validity.'
Back to the topic at hand in this posting, what do you think of any precedent set by the BMA's statements rejecting assisted suicide formally?
"Winston, I thought you said previously that the comfort vs. pain issue was not crucial but that ultimate autonomy (which you don't defend) is.
Why do you prefer "Doctor Death" if you would also deny the depressive and nihilistic character some have pointed out in the 'culture of death' perspective? Are you saying that you would prefer not to live life than that it should be a certain 'unacceptable' way? What determines your acceptance or rejection of it? This would be a good time to come up with something to say regarding the basis of your claimed ultimate autonomy."
Ultimate autonomy would allow the individual to decide when death is preferable to continued life. It would not force anyone to either accept or reject palliative care.
In Australia, the elderly want to die because if they get a stroke, they'll be trapped.
I prefer Doctor Death to Doctor Pain because Doctor Death is not paternalistic, whereas Doctor Pain is.
"Your criticism concerning what you've called the 'double effect excuse' is hypocritical. You've said all along that ultimate autonomy and opinion are supreme in these matters. Now you're saying that the opinion and intent of palliative care promoters is not important."
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the medical profession. They kill with the double effect without consulting with the patient or admitting responsibility for causing death.
"Another faulty portion of what I assume is your basis for the criticism is that death #1 equals death #2. This is actually the same old issue of your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between deaths, which you are constrained not to do in order to remain nominally consistent with your doctrines."
OK then, what is the difference between the deaths, in your opinion?
"These issues are more complex than you recognize, but it seems you require simplicity rather than complexity to hide that ideological handicap. A sounder view would be one that allows you to recognize, even embrace, that complexity while still maintaining the integrity of your viewpoint. That sounder view is what those of us who work toward a 'culture of life' are discussing here."
The "sounder view" that suffering is good and if palliative care is insufficient, then people should just put up with it?
Sorry, but that's not good enough for me.
"If the compassion of others is irrelevant in the cases we're discussing here, then you have no reason to claim it for yourself. Your label of "duty of live" is an error that arises from your failure to maintain consistent and reasonable definitions of terms like duty, rights, etc. Even if anti-assisted suicide advocates are claiming some form of duty to live, which they do not seem to be, what is the basis for your absolute claim that such a notion is 'abhorrent' if personal opinion defines everything?"
Individual opinion defines what is best for the individual. Public opinion determines what the legal situation should be.
"I suspect your failure to come across 'valid anti-choice arguments' may be consistent with your track record here of intellectual disingenuity. You've repeatedly attacked others without even a pretense of rational discussion. That alone causes me to doubt the truth of your judgment of 'validity.'"
No, I just think that arguments that focus on the "benefits" of suffering in and of itself are insane.
"Back to the topic at hand in this posting, what do you think of any precedent set by the BMA's statements rejecting assisted suicide formally?"
I think the BMA is hypocritical. Their stance won't stop ethical doctors from helping patients die.
Autonomy: from the greek, literally translated as self-law (autos meaning self, nomos meaning law).
The ability to live autonomously is not what we are discussing. You still have your individual moral reasoning whether or not we legalize euthanasia. Your autonomous existence allows you to disagree with what is the law, as mine allows me to disagree with you. Your autonomous existence even allows you to come to this blog, rant and rave a bit, tell us what to think. Our autonomous existence allows us to come to this blog, laugh at your ideology, and tell you what to think. This wonderful system is what we can call entangled autonomies. Ultmate autonomy is unachievable in this system, because it would require the locality of the indivudual. Local autonomy does not exist because we do not choose when and how we interact with the rest of reality. For example, if I throw a paper cup at you, you will respond to it, whether it is merely a sensory response, or an emotional one. You cannot choose whether or not I threw the paper cup; however, you can choose to respond to my throwing of the paper cup in a fashion that pleases you. Thus your autonomous existence is not in question by my throwing of the paper cup, because it is your moral reasoning would dictate the best response to my throwing of the paper cup, and not mine.
Having said all that, how has an individuals autonomous existence ever been in question during this entire discussion? Short answer is: it hasn't. What has been in question is whether or not society has responsibility enough to allow people to determine the way they end their lives. Let's proceed from here.
What about PERSONAL responsibility, Dan? Traditional conservatives are supposed to support this, but you don't. You want a nanny state to "protect" people from "exploitation".
Who said anything about me being conservative? I sure didn't. If you want to know my political affiliations, you can ask. Don't make assumptions.
Obviously, you didn't read my post thoroughly: the statement "WHAT HAS BEEN IN QUESTION" infers that this was my synopsis of the current argument. My synopsis is easily disagreeable, but it is my interpretation of the discussion. Please feel free to correct it and add your own understanding, but don't be a presumptuous jerk about it.
I think Dan is right in saying that autonomy per se has not been in question. However, the ultimate autonomy Winston seems to be claiming has been in question. As Dan has stated, ultimate autonomy is clearly unachievable for us. Decisions made on the basis of limited autonomy are inextricably connected to all else.
The point of this discussion is not to determine whether or not people exercise autonomy in the sense that they make decisions. It isn't even to determine whether or not they act to carry out those decisions or whether or not it is fitting that people should both make and execute decisions. If this issue were really that simple, then the discussion would've ended long ago.
Winston seems to be claiming that the situation is simple in that an individual's opinions, on the basis of which he makes decisions and acts, are the determinant of moral and ethical 'rightness.' Essentially, moral and ethical arguments are expressions of opinion that can't be denied because of the presumed ultimate autonomy behind them. On the other hand, such reasoning can't be meaningfully agreed with either, given that no other opinion or argument can be legitimately brought to bear on the issue. Again, if things were this simple and really were self-evident to all, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. In fact, we would probably not even consider ourselves in any way subject to law, given that the moral consensus law has been said to represent would've been thought meaningless or at least inapplicable to an individual's decisions.
The situation Winston has claimed as real runs counter to the intuitive knowledge of all of us. It also runs counter to a rational and realistic view of things. Notice that we're not talking about statistics here or simply reiterating a viewpoint to force agreement. We're pointing out by sound argument that which is already intuitively understood by all of us. In other words, we're calling attention to something self-evident, namely that ultimate autonomy is not a possibility for us.
Dan's language of 'societal responsibility' is important in that it refers to a standard against which we are measured. Without a standard, there is no responsibility because there is nothing to which we respond. We could try to choose a different word to avoid that etymological conclusion, but we can't eliminate the nature of what we're talking about.
Let's begin where Dan left off, addressing the question of societal responsibility. I'm not certain I agree that that is the crucial issue, but I think it is definitely one of them, given that we're talking about assisted suicide laws. As we do, let's honestly ask meaningful questions and actually listen for the answers. Let's stay on topic.
Winston Jen: "I found it a rather effective way to display Wesley's true motives."
It certainly was very effective at revealing something, but it wasn't about Wesley!
Looking back on past week or so of discussion on the blog, I see two problematic tendencies that are also common in the debate at large:
1) Arguments tend to remain at an abstract ethical level rather than a more practical one.
2) Patients are envisioned as completely free agents floating in a social vacuum, which is hopelessly unrealistic.
Both of these problems arise from not putting the issue in its actual, concrete, real-world context. In reality, a patient is entangled in a web of medical, material, familial, societal, etc. threads that each have to be considered, both in terms of their effects on the patient and how all of these would be altered by legalization. This isn't done nearly enough. The only exceptions I've seen are, among supporters, utilitarian bean-counters who emphasize the expense of patients, and among opponents, disability activists who know the context firsthand.
The latter is, of course, the group to which I belong, and exactly why I keep returning to these specifics in my comments. Quite likely for every single other person here, end-of-life issues are a hypothetical for some vague distant future, and imagination the only way of guessing what it means to be a patient in such a position. For me it is an everyday reality, and through my own direct experience I see many reasons to fear what legalization may mean for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
So to bring this back to the nature of the debate in these comments: Yes, let's not only broaden it to consider societal responsibility (as BAP suggests) but also the wider context that I mentioned above. Here's my contribution to get things started:
* It can be argued that euthanasia legalization is primarily an extension of physicians' powers and only secondarily an expansion of patients' options. From this angle, what would it mean for physicians to have a free hand in terminating patients' lives? Consider both the impact on the nature of the profession and on the doctor-patient relationship.
Bernhardt, I'm of the opinion that the abstract and the concrete harmonize, that they are not mutually exclusive. I don't think you're saying they are, but I simply want to point out that the abstract ethical debate has been the result of certain abstract nonsensical but undefended notions put forth by culture of death proponents here. To understand the basis of the arguments put forth, it's worthwhile to have some idea why we're saying what we do, that we might more wisely apply the principles we're living by. The contextualization you're referring to has been attempted by a number of people in various ways here, I think. The practical is an outgrowth of the abstract principles, although we live in a real world with real situations.
While I did 'suggest' we begin with 'societal responsibility,' I did so because of Dan's prior suggestion. I actually do think that focusing on the real situations of real people is important, as you've said, although that has led to much of the slinging of statistics and spinning anecdotes we've had to endure on this blog. I don't mean to suggest that the specific situations of real people are unimportant, but those situations are not without a broader context, as you seem to be saying.
As we begin, do you think we should differentiate between medical euthanasia and assisted suicide? The reason I ask this is that in research, my line of work, the term euthanasia refers to an end of life that is not specifically desired by the one dying.
Along your line of conversation, I would suggest that freeing physicians to terminate patients' lives may have unforeseen consequences because people, patients and physicians alike, are unpredictable. Some of these consequences could include patient deaths that are unwanted but which may be chosen by their physicians for any number of possible reasons, such as the high costs of continued care or demand for donated organs or the like. We cannot anticipate that all physicians will act 'professionally' simply because we apply that label to them. The impact on the profession could then be undue authority vested in them, as the MD degree could then become in effect a 'license to kill.' The doctor-patient relationship could be very adversely affected as patient distrust of physicians may become the order of the day, setting up an essential antagonism between the two.
Obviously, these thoughts are not exhaustive, but I think these are among the possible outcomes. An opponent might suggest what would be called 'benefits' of legalization, but whether or not these are true benefits would depend in part upon some of the abstract ideas some have been trying to talk about. What are your thoughts on those abstract ideas, Bernhardt? I think they must be intimately connected to the practical.
Also, the BMA'a stance and the stance of any similar body in any other country may be a significant player as these hypothetical events unfold. How do you think this is relevant?
"It certainly was very effective at revealing something, but it wasn't about Wesley!"
Yes it was. Wesley said that we have a duty to live so the people like him can be compassionate and look good. Yeah, right. Last time I checked, compassion was about REDUCING suffering, NOT forcing them to suffer.
"It can be argued that euthanasia legalization is primarily an extension of physicians' powers and only secondarily an expansion of patients' options. From this angle, what would it mean for physicians to have a free hand in terminating patients' lives? Consider both the impact on the nature of the profession and on the doctor-patient relationship."
Too bad it's already happening now, with no regulations, no control, and very, VERY few prosecutions:
http://www.saves.asn.au/resources/facts/fs21.htm
The fact sheet talks about a government-funded study. The only reasonable conclusion is this:
"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."
Whatever criticisms of the studies are made, or interpretations offered, it is clear that the situation in Australia is less satisfactory than in the Netherlands, where there is more emphasis on the careful regulation and monitoring of medical end-of-life decision-making. These studies strengthen the case for law reform in Australia to permit voluntary euthanasia under appropriate safeguards."
"Also, the BMA'a stance and the stance of any similar body in any other country may be a significant player as these hypothetical events unfold. How do you think this is relevant?"
Well, the BMA's stance does not magically make euthanasia go away. And doctors are ONLY free to terminate their patient's lives by their request. Patients would have to endure a waiting period (which they don't have to endure if they're starving themselves).
"Wesley said that we have a duty to live so the people like him can be compassionate and look good."
Come on, Winston, that's a blatant misrepresentation and you certainly know it. Wesley never says suffering is inherently good and must be embraced for the sake of other peoples' image. What you're referring to is his pointing out that helping the sick and dying can and should bring out the best in people, and this is what should be cultivated rather than seeing the sickly as burdens that should be dispensed with. But I don't expect you to see the latter point because, again, you keep focusing on the patient in isolation and ignoring the surrounding context.
"Too bad it's already happening now, with no regulations, no control, and very, VERY few prosecutions:"
Yes, and if incidents go unprosecuted while it is still *illegal*, what on earth makes you think things will get any better when it's legal? Your response is irrelevant to my question anyway, since I was asking what the impact is and will be on the medical profession -- an issue that you seem strangely uninterested in through all these discussions.
"... in the Netherlands, where there is more emphasis on the careful regulation and monitoring of medical end-of-life decision-making."
Yes, and abuse still exists there regardless, such as patients being euthanized based on doctors' and/or others'. judgment rather than the patient's consent, and the creeping expansion of "eligible" groups to include the non-terminally ill and disabled infants. All the assurances that legalization will remain limited in scope and be carefully regulated ring hollow given such real-world experiences.
Come on, Winston, that's a blatant misrepresentation and you certainly know it. Wesley never says suffering is inherently good and must be embraced for the sake of other peoples' image."
Yes he did. It was a while back, but he believes people have a duty to live so that others can be "compassionate". Hmph. The last time I checked, compassion involved reducing suffering, not forcing people to suffer.
"What you're referring to is his pointing out that helping the sick and dying can and should bring out the best in people, and this is what should be cultivated rather than seeing the sickly as burdens that should be dispensed with."
Yes, that is correct. I was referring to that. But bringing out the best in people does NOT justify forcing them to live a life that is unbearable.
If Wesley were to give 1000 people HIV on purpose, and he pleaded, "I only wanted to bring compassion out in others", I don't think that any sane jury would acquit him. Increasing suffering to promote compassion is self-defeating.
"But I don't expect you to see the latter point because, again, you keep focusing on the patient in isolation and ignoring the surrounding context."
While you ignore the patient and only think of your own selfishness.
""Too bad it's already happening now, with no regulations, no control, and very, VERY few prosecutions:"
Yes, and if incidents go unprosecuted while it is still *illegal*, what on earth makes you think things will get any better when it's legal?"
The government funded-study I pointed you to, and which a voluntary euthanasia society analysed. There is less abuse in the Netherlands than there is in Australia.
"Your response is irrelevant to my question anyway, since I was asking what the impact is and will be on the medical profession -- an issue that you seem strangely uninterested in through all these discussions."
It doesn't seem to affect many doctors, who are prepared to help their patients die with a lethal injection.
"... in the Netherlands, where there is more emphasis on the careful regulation and monitoring of medical end-of-life decision-making."
"Yes, and abuse still exists there regardless, such as patients being euthanized based on doctors' and/or others'. judgment rather than the patient's consent, and the creeping expansion of "eligible" groups to include the non-terminally ill and disabled infants. All the assurances that legalization will remain limited in scope and be carefully regulated ring hollow given such real-world experiences."
If you checked the study, you'd see that there is MORE abuse in Australia than in the Netherlands. If you were worried about protecting people, you'd regulate euthanasia.
BTW, Wesley, how would you react "good news" like this?
"Palliative care just outlawed for pro-life hypocrites who get erections when other people suffer."
Post a Comment
<< Home