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.)
There has been some agitating lately to legalize assisted suicide/euthanasia in India, of all places. Apparently, the government has turned a firm thumb's down. Good.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:07 PM
36 Comments
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
36 Comments:
So, what do you plan to do about the euthanasia underground, hmmm?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300094396/sr=8-1/qid=1154393759/ref=sr_1_1/102-1181145-0674542?ie=UTF8
You and your ilk still haven't managed to convict Nitschke yet.
"So, what do you plan to do about the euthanasia underground, hmmm?"
Prosecute the doctors and execute them for murder ?
Seems like the only fair option on the whole.
Jason
I don't plan to do anything. Hopefully, when and if law enforcement learns of murders or assisted suicides, they will prosecute as permitted by law. Also, need good suicide prevention, palliative care, etc.
Nitschke hasn't actually assisted suicides that we know of. He only advocates doing so in public. Of course, he has been driven out of Australia to avoid prosecution, so that is a minor victory.
OK, Jason, what will you do when those prosecutions lead to worse end-of-life care and even more pressure on the health system in Australia?
"I don't plan to do anything. Hopefully, when and if law enforcement learns of murders or assisted suicides, they will prosecute as permitted by law. Also, need good suicide prevention, palliative care, etc."
OK, so they'll prosecute 80 and 90-year olds for challenging a fascistic law on suicide information and charge them with $110,000 fines.
I doubt it.
http://www.exitinternational.net/documents/eDvol3no6c.pdf
"Nitschke hasn't actually assisted suicides that we know of. He only advocates doing so in public. Of course, he has been driven out of Australia to avoid prosecution, so that is a minor victory."
Not really. No one has been prosecuted yet in Australia for spreading information (or accessing information) related to suicide methods.
He assisted the four patients who used the NT law while it was active.
Tell me, Wesley, would you like to be killed by a terminally-ill mass murderer with less than two years to live?
He wasn't prosecuted while it was legal. Wow. Then, when it ceased to be legal, he stopped assisting suicides (at least publicly). So, the law stopped Nitschke from assisting suicides.
He has left Australia for New Zealand because he fears running afoul of Australia's law.
I don't want to be killed by anybody.
"He wasn't prosecuted while it was legal. Wow. Then, when it ceased to be legal, he stopped assisting suicides (at least publicly). So, the law stopped Nitschke from assisting suicides."
Exactly. Many assisted suicides still occur under the radar. Judges award "custodial" or "suspended" sentences under most cases.
How do you know how many cases occur without consent? You don't - it's underground, unregulated and essentially unpunished.
"He has left Australia for New Zealand because he fears running afoul of Australia's law."
Oh, really now? Didn't you hear the news in June where he challenged the new laws in public on his mobile phone? I doubt he'd get charged. The new laws do NOT prevent information being divulged in face-to-face conversation.
"I don't want to be killed by anybody."
I doubt anyone does. Still, if the terminally or chronically ill became mass-murderers, I think the remaining pro-lifers would switch sides to save their own lives.
I'd say the betting odds of the terminal or chronically ill killing you because they are sick of your preaching are 1:1.
In any case, they'd be almost immune from punishment because they ALREADY have a death sentence. For some, death would only be a mercy.
Sources:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1676123.htm
http://www.abc.gov.au/news/items/200606/1676123.htm?darwin
It strikes me you don't give a darn about the rule of law, Winston Jen. You celebrate "underground" euthanasia and people defying the law. But once you start down that path, where would we stop? Where YOU believe the law should be enforced?
If society, in its democratic wisdom, doesn't legalize assisted suicide, that law should be respected and obeyed. When it is violated, it should be enforced. Or, do you believe in underground bank robbery, too?
It strikes me you don't give a darn about the rule of law, Winston Jen. You celebrate "underground" euthanasia and people defying the law. But once you start down that path, where would we stop? Where YOU believe the law should be enforced?"
We should punish people who kill patients against their will. The majority support this.
Referenda in the US only fail because your side has more money.
The general public took LESS THAN 10 MINUTES to acquit a doctor in Perth. He was accused of euthanizing Freeda Hayes.
http://shearersbookshop.com.au/featuredbook1.asp?StoreURL=default_au&bookid=0732911494
"If society, in its democratic wisdom, doesn't legalize assisted suicide, that law should be respected and obeyed. When it is violated, it should be enforced. Or, do you believe in underground bank robbery, too?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Then why haven't we had a referendum in Australia? Because the pro-lifers are afraid they would lose.
The law against euthanasia is NOT enforced or punished because it DOES NOT have public support.
If 1000 pro-choice cancer patients killed 1000 pro-lifers each, the "opposition" would almost vanish. The fact that we don't kill pro-lifers like pro-lifers bomb abortion clinics, no matter how extreme we are on the pro-choice side, shows that WE ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAN YOU! Nancy Crick only killed herself. She didn't want to kill others.
If the pro-choicers were as extreme as you, Kevin Andrews WOULD BE DEAD. Period.
New point: If you were in the WTC on 9/11, would you try and stop people jumping out of the windows? If so, why? If not, then aren't you admitting that suicide is rational under certain circumstances?
Underground bank robbery has a victim. VOLUNTARY euthanasia does not.
Do you oppose prostitution? If not, then why oppose voluntary euthanasia? Both are individual choices.
The pro side spends far more money in this country than the anti, at the moment. Compassion and Choices (old Hemlock Society) is financed by Soros and others to the tune of millions.
Moreover, the pro side spent more in Maine in 2000, for example, and lost anyway.
Democratic processes include representative democracy. Your country has decided in its wisdom, to keep euthanasia illegal. You are free to work against those laws. But you are not free to defy them. If you do, you should pay the price. Indeed, if you believe in civil disobedience, you should welcome paying the price.
"The fact that we don't kill pro-lifers like pro-lifers bomb abortion clinics, no matter how extreme we are on the pro-choice side, shows that WE ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAN YOU!"
Winston, before your self-righteous orgy of back-patting swells your ego to explosive levels, perhaps you should consider the following examples of the supposed compassion you have shown on this blog:
Under _Assisted Suicide Goes Down to Deserved Defeat in CA_
"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."
Under _British Medical Association Rejects Assisted Suicide
"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."
And again:
"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"
And in the current thread:
"I'd say the betting odds of the terminal or chronically ill killing you because they are sick of your preaching are 1:1."
Some advice, Winston: Lay off the nastiness, bile, and juvenile posturing if you want some credibility around here. You were improving for a time, but you seem to be losing it again now that Wesley is back.
Wesley Smith: "I don't plan to do anything. Hopefully, when and if law enforcement learns of murders or assisted suicides, they will prosecute as permitted by law."
Wesley, things will clear up if you understand Winston's view on the law-enforcement issue:
Let's say that if euthanasia were to be legalized, 80% of cases would be "legitimate" and 20% would be "abusive" under Winston's criteria.
When 100% of all euthanasia cases regardless of type are illegal -- and therefore all abusive in the eyes of the law -- the justice system will be totally apathetic and not enforce the law.
When the 80% of cases that are "legitimate" are legalized, suddenly there will be dogged, unrelenting enforcement of the law against the 20% of "abusive" cases.
So to summarize: The justice system doesn't care about euthanasia abuses when there are many of them, but will suddenly become very concerned when there are only a few.
And Winston wonders why we're a little skeptical of this.
"OK, Jason, what will you do when those prosecutions lead to worse end-of-life care and even more pressure on the health system in Australia?"
So what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the law should be ignored and people should be allowed to be murdered if it makes the health care system better ?
What sort of a lunatic are you ?
I'm sure the health care system would work better if we dragged people off the street and cut them up for their organs.
Jen, you are an idiot.
Jason
Jason: Please no name calling. Thanks.
"Democratic processes include representative democracy. Your country has decided in its wisdom, to keep euthanasia illegal. You are free to work against those laws. But you are not free to defy them. If you do, you should pay the price. Indeed, if you believe in civil disobedience, you should welcome paying the price."
Fine. If I become a quadraplegic, I'll consider biting your throat out. ;)
If I become terminally ill, I'll consider committing suicide by cop and take out 1000 pro-lifers. After all, DEAD PEOPLE CANNOT VOTE.
Also, you cannot really punish terminally ill mass murderers unless you punish their friends and family, which would be punishing the innocent. You lose, bucko.
BTW, do you have a source for the pro-choicers spending more money for that referendum?
BTW, congratulations, AGAIN - http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=13468
Bernhardt:
"Winston, before your self-righteous orgy of back-patting swells your ego to explosive levels, perhaps you should consider the following examples of the supposed compassion you have shown on this blog:"
I am well aware of that, but considering that WESLEY SUPPORTS TORTURE, I don't care about hurting his "feelings".
""OK, Jason, what will you do when those prosecutions lead to worse end-of-life care and even more pressure on the health system in Australia?"
So what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the law should be ignored and people should be allowed to be murdered if it makes the health care system better ?"
No, I was saying that fear of prosecution leads to underprescription of pain-relief drugs. Speaking of which, why is Wesley SELLING "Power over Pain" instead of giving it away?
"What sort of a lunatic are you ?
I'm sure the health care system would work better if we dragged people off the street and cut them up for their organs.
Jen, you are an idiot.
Jason"
No, you're an idiot. Voluntary euthanasia has no victim, just as making love has no victim.
You haven't addressed this point either, Wesley.
"If you were in the WTC on 9/11, would you try and stop people jumping out of the windows? If so, why? If not, then aren't you admitting that suicide is rational under certain circumstances?"
"No, you're an idiot. Voluntary euthanasia has no victim, just as making love has no victim."
Of course it doesn't have a victim, just as murder has no victims. I don't hear any complaints from people that have been killed about why they "choose" to do it.
But hey, your a barbarian and it is pretty obvious that you don't care about anything more significant than getting your own pro-death way.
Jason
""No, you're an idiot. Voluntary euthanasia has no victim, just as making love has no victim."
Of course it doesn't have a victim, just as murder has no victims. I don't hear any complaints from people that have been killed about why they "choose" to do it.
But hey, your a barbarian and it is pretty obvious that you don't care about anything more significant than getting your own pro-death way.
Jason"
If suicide has a victim, surgery has a victim and should therefore be outlawed. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy cause immense amounts of pain - is this not "harm"?
I just want to be left alone. If you won't leave me alone, expect me to sabotage palliative care for pro-lifers.
I just want to be left alone. If you won't leave me alone, expect me to sabotage palliative care for pro-lifers.
You know, I figured as soon as Smith posted a remark on euthanasia, I'd come in here and see the queue swamped with frothing nonesense from good ol' winston jen.
You never disappoint.
Sabotage palliative care? Why? Why would you deny people in need access to appropriate healthcare?
Want to be left alone? There is a little piece of paper you can sign called a living will. Use that to deny yourself care, if that's what you're after.
In the meantime, it might benefit you to chill out before your head explodes.
Deep Toad:
"Sabotage palliative care? Why? Why would you deny people in need access to appropriate healthcare?"
Because pro-lifers like you oppose voluntary euthanasia, and, therefore, support torture.
How long could you last in a concentration camp before begging for death? I don't think I could last a year.
"Want to be left alone? There is a little piece of paper you can sign called a living will. Use that to deny yourself care, if that's what you're after."
Not good enough. Self-starvation takes too long. Suicide by cop gets me dead in an instant, and it has the potential for revenge.
"In the meantime, it might benefit you to chill out before your head explodes."
I'll look into it.
Also, a group of people with Motor Neurone Disease in Australia have decided to break the law by helping each other die. The ones who can still move their arms will help those who cannot.
Background info on one of the worst conditions in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MND
Winston: "I am well aware of that, but considering that WESLEY SUPPORTS TORTURE, I don't care about hurting his "feelings"."
Even if you don't care about what Wesley thinks, you should care about what your venomous comments reveal about *you*. Do you even read what you write? Just look at one of your latest bits of nastiness:
"If I become terminally ill, I'll consider committing suicide by cop and take out 1000 pro-lifers. After all, DEAD PEOPLE CANNOT VOTE."
Think about that: You just seriously entertained the idea of murdering 1000 people for the "crime" of having a different opinion than you. You like to crow about how much "better" you are than us, but the only comments I've seen here that urge violence on anyone are your sadistic fantasies.
For your own sake, Winston, get some perspective before you turn into an obsessive nutcase.
Winston Jen: I have been pondering your posts. I sense that you are pulling the chains of people with your loonier posts, e.g. about killing pro lifers, etc.. And I want there to be an open exchange here between and among people with differing opinions at this blog. But I must insist that you cease and desist such over-the-line postings. Any more expressions of hatred toward those with whom you disagree, or expressed desires for people to suffer for their beliefs, will result in your being black balled from the blog. Please control yourself.
Thank you.
Sorry, Wesley.
Of course I do not wish to sabotage palliative care for pro-lifers, nor do I wish to exploit any status as a terminally-ill patient by killing large numbers of pro-lifers.
However, I detest the hypocrisy of pro-lifers and conservatives in general. They claim to want a "small government", but they intrude into the most personal life and death decisions.
Then there was Wesley's statement that Diane Pretty "died peacefully in her sleep". Would you say that to her widower?
Even when I gave a link to news articles about her death, you did not respond.
Also, you still have not given evidence to show that the pro-choice side has spent more money. Also, it raises the question of other methods used by the pro-life lobby, such as refusing communion to voters who voted in favour of legalizing assisted suicide.
Lastly, I would like to say that the only thing that criminalizing euthanasia does is allow the rich to fly to Sweden and get help there. However, I would rather have that money go to feed the poor, but if I have to do it to die peacefully, then I will.
Detest away, Winston.
As a matter of fact, I have been in the same room with Mr. Pretty, during a recent debate about the Joffe bill, at a debate. He and I directed comments, respectfully, at each other.
He said she was very unhappy and suffered a lot. I don't doubt it. It is an awful disease. But she did not die choking on her own saliva, as she feared and many pro euthanasia advocates warned. And ALS patients can thrive with proper care. I have seen it with my own eyes as a hospice volunteer.
Indeed, during the Pretty controversy, I was brought over to the UK to debate and speak on the issue. I was on BBC and the "die choking" cannard was posed by the presenter. I asked if the BBC presenter had bothered to contact Cecily Saunders or Nigel Sykes, of St. Christopher's Hospice. Of course, she had not. Well I had. I interviewed Dame Saunders for COD, the book you didn't read but rated one star, and she said that of the thousands of motor neurone disease patients, none had died choking because they received proper care.
What could the BBC presenter say? She was stuck on a story line that wasn't true.
Not killing people isn't forcing them to suffer, it is ending their lives. Our job as human beings, it seems to me, is to alleviate suffering to the best of our ability. But that should not include killing. After all, studies show that people who might want to die today, are very glad they are alive tomorrow.
"As a matter of fact, I have been in the same room with Mr. Pretty, during a recent debate about the Joffe bill, at a debate. He and I directed comments, respectfully, at each other."
Good for you. Too bad Diane was a disabled patient on the pro-choice side.
"He said she was very unhappy and suffered a lot. I don't doubt it. It is an awful disease. But she did not die choking on her own saliva, as she feared and many pro euthanasia advocates warned. And ALS patients can thrive with proper care. I have seen it with my own eyes as a hospice volunteer."
Have you ever seen it fail? Would you like to be on the receiving end of inadequate care? I doubt it.
"Indeed, during the Pretty controversy, I was brought over to the UK to debate and speak on the issue. I was on BBC and the "die choking" cannard was posed by the presenter. I asked if the BBC presenter had bothered to contact Cecily Saunders or Nigel Sykes, of St. Christopher's Hospice. Of course, she had not. Well I had. I interviewed Dame Saunders for COD, the book you didn't read but rated one star, and she said that of the thousands of motor neurone disease patients, none had died choking because they received proper care."
In other words, "they didn't choke because they were sedated into a coma".
Either that, or a respirator did all the breathing for them.
Nice rhetoric, but you shouldn't force everyone to go into hospice care.
"What could the BBC presenter say? She was stuck on a story line that wasn't true."
Didn't some hospice staff describe Diane's death as "horrific"?
"Not killing people isn't forcing them to suffer, it is ending their lives."
Yes, it is. You cause incredible distress by denying them the choice.
"Our job as human beings, it seems to me, is to alleviate suffering to the best of our ability. But that should not include killing."
Whoops, that would prohibit terminal sedation and ever-increasing doses of morphine.
In a race between terminal cancer and terminal sedation, MORPHINE ALWAYS WINS.
"After all, studies show that people who might want to die today, are very glad they are alive tomorrow."
Then why do so many terminally and chronically ill people commit suicide early, while they are still able, to avoid suffering?
Also, you still have not answered this. I believe it's a fair question.
"If you were in the WTC on 9/11, would you try and stop people jumping out of the windows? If so, why? If not, then aren't you admitting that suicide is rational under certain circumstances?"
Winston: "If you were in the WTC on 9/11, would you try and stop people jumping out of the windows? If so, why? If not, then aren't you admitting that suicide is rational under certain circumstances?"
That's actually a poor example for two reasons: 1) It's only in retrospect that we know it was a hopeless situation, and 2) the fact that the falling bodies of the jumpers killed rescue workers is enough to stop them from jumping for reasons that have nothing to do with your point.
But let's concede your point and agree that it's better in the case of a burning, collapsing building to avoid a potential "bad" death by choosing a certain "better" death. So what? The case against euthanasia has never required holding that in every single situation -- no matter how rare -- suicide is utterly unjustified.
Again, we are encountering the problem of you visualizing patients as imperial autonomous selves floating unconnected in a vacuum. The anti-euthanasia case rests in part on the recognition that patients are embedded in a social web that they both affect and are affected by. Your WTC example doesn't even touch on this. There are no broader social implications of jumping here. There are no bean-counting rescue workers persuading people to jump to reduce expenses, or family members who want to be free of a burden.
"Gotcha" logic chopping like your example does little to shed light on this topic.
Winston: "Also, it raises the question of other methods used by the pro-life lobby, such as refusing communion to voters who voted in favour of legalizing assisted suicide."
What question? Are you saying a religious organization is not free to determine its beliefs for itself and require its members to affirm these? This isn't unfairly pressuring church members, it's simply asking them to be honest.
Regardless, you are misrepresenting what's going on with this (at least in America). No church is spying on members' voting ballots and actively blocking the "bad" ones from receiving communion. These churches have simply announced that support for legalization is incompatible with their beliefs and that any member who thinks otherwise and acts on that is not in good standing, and thus should not partake in sacraments. That's as far as it goes -- the rest is up to the consciences of such members.
Why are you so concerned about this, anyway? Do you actually believe that communion is a vehicle of divine grace that should never be withheld from believers? ;-)
No, Winston, they weren't sedated into a coma to prevent choking. Learn about palliative care before you make such statements. And a real problem for people with motor neurone disease is the constant fear mongering by pro euthanasia types. The disease has become the movement's bloody flag and it is disgusting. Better put the emphasis on all that can be done to keep patients comfortable.
When they receive proper care, motor neurone disease patients usually die peacefully in their sleep. That is precisely what happened to my hospice friend when I volunteered for hospice.
By the way Winston, what do you do for suffering people other than rail about how they should be assisted in suicide?
"No, Winston, they weren't sedated into a coma to prevent choking. Learn about palliative care before you make such statements. And a real problem for people with motor neurone disease is the constant fear mongering by pro euthanasia types. The disease has become the movement's bloody flag and it is disgusting. Better put the emphasis on all that can be done to keep patients comfortable."
And ignore the 10% of cases when palliative care fails? No one wants to be in that 10%, and to avoid such situations, many terminally ill individuals commit suicide.
For example:
"When they receive proper care, motor neurone disease patients usually die peacefully in their sleep. That is precisely what happened to my hospice friend when I volunteered for hospice."
Good for you. Unfortunately, human error leads to tragedies at least some of the time.
Also, why should they be forced to die "naturally"?
http://www.exitinternational.net/sandy_williamson.htm
"She knew that one day she would wake up paralysed. She was terrified of all of a sudden losing the ability to move her arms. If she was not able to move her arms, she would lose her chance to control her own destiny."
"By the way Winston, what do you do for suffering people other than rail about how they should be assisted in suicide?"
Well, for a start, the right-wing Australian government should fund palliative care adequately.
Still, it has to deal with how less than 25% of people surveyed believed that palliative care alone was enough.
http://www.dwdvictoria.org.au/Docs/VE%20Poll%20Results%202002.pdf
(Page 11)
I've studied up on palliative care.
Terminal sedation is used quite often when it fails.
That, and this is a sad indication of "advanced" palliative care in this day and age:
http://www.dwdvictoria.org.au/FullStoriesAlanaBourke.html
"That's actually a poor example for two reasons: 1) It's only in retrospect that we know it was a hopeless situation, and 2) the fact that the falling bodies of the jumpers killed rescue workers is enough to stop them from jumping for reasons that have nothing to do with your point."
Good point. Still, I don't think many people would argue that jumping out was "irrational" or "immoral" in those circumstances.
"But let's concede your point and agree that it's better in the case of a burning, collapsing building to avoid a potential "bad" death by choosing a certain "better" death. So what? The case against euthanasia has never required holding that in every single situation -- no matter how rare -- suicide is utterly unjustified."
But Wesley spoke out against "death on demand" and the "absolute right to suicide", so he apparently thinks that even a "right to suicide" is wrong or immoral for some reason.
"Again, we are encountering the problem of you visualizing patients as imperial autonomous selves floating unconnected in a vacuum. The anti-euthanasia case rests in part on the recognition that patients are embedded in a social web that they both affect and are affected by. Your WTC example doesn't even touch on this. There are no broader social implications of jumping here. There are no bean-counting rescue workers persuading people to jump to reduce expenses, or family members who want to be free of a burden."
And there is more abuse now. More patients are killed against their will, and no one ever investigates unless a formal complaint is made.
"Winston: "Also, it raises the question of other methods used by the pro-life lobby, such as refusing communion to voters who voted in favour of legalizing assisted suicide."
What question? Are you saying a religious organization is not free to determine its beliefs for itself and require its members to affirm these? This isn't unfairly pressuring church members, it's simply asking them to be honest.
Regardless, you are misrepresenting what's going on with this (at least in America). No church is spying on members' voting ballots and actively blocking the "bad" ones from receiving communion. These churches have simply announced that support for legalization is incompatible with their beliefs and that any member who thinks otherwise and acts on that is not in good standing, and thus should not partake in sacraments. That's as far as it goes -- the rest is up to the consciences of such members.
Why are you so concerned about this, anyway? Do you actually believe that communion is a vehicle of divine grace that should never be withheld from believers? ;-)"
I think that excommunicating politicians that vote a certain way is a mockery of democracy because it prevents a free vote.
Winston: "I think that excommunicating politicians that vote a certain way is a mockery of democracy because it prevents a free vote."
Let's listen in on a call to the ACLU hotline...
ACLU: "American Civil Liberties Union; how may I help you?"
Caller: "Uh, yeah, I'd like to report a violation of my voting rights."
ACLU: "OK sir, could you please tell me more about the situation?"
Caller: "Well, my wife is, like, a total hard-core Republican, y'know, and now that she found out I voted for Smith instead of Jones, she's making me sleep on the couch!"
ACLU: "Sir, that is an outrageous mockery of democracy that completely subverts your free vote! We're taking your case!"
Post a Comment
<< Home