Party of Death
I reviewed Ramesh Ponnuru's book Party of Death in the current issue of the Weekly Standard. I gave it pretty much a rave.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:19 PM
41 Comments
Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human
This WEB log considers issues involving assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, 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.)
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Previous Posts
- British Medical Association Rejects Assisted Suici...
- Assisted Suicide Goes Down to Deserved Defeat in C...
- Taking a Breather
- "The Catman Cometh"
- My California Senate Testimony
- Your New Genetically Engineered Pet is Here!
- AB 651: Language Perversion by Promoters of Assist...
- Beware of Stem Cell Quackery
- Scientists Continuing to Put Human Cells into Anim...
- Beginning to Receive Comments on the Starbuck's Cu...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
41 Comments:
I find it interesting how Ramesh doesn't address the Republicans at all.
Does he condemn the Republican party for any of the following:
- Not supporting universal healthcare for everyone
- Not mandating compulsory blood donations (which can save up to three lives - forced pregnancies only save one or two lives apiece)
- Supporting the death penalty.
Also, if it is always immoral to "kill innocent lives to save innocent lives", why did Bush authorize the air force to shoot down hijacked planes to prevent further 9/11 disasters?
Why is it acceptable to separate siamese twins joined at the heart or skull? Wouldn't that involve killing one of them to save the other?
I also recommend this video:
I find it very amusing how Ramesh accuses the pro-choicers of sanctimony.
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/29067/Ramesh_Ponnuru_with_Jon_Stewart.html
Winston, it's like you sit at your computer frothing at the mouth and just waiting for the next post or comment...
Proselytizing just doesn't work.
Wesley, thanks for the review. From your review, it sounds like Ponnuru was pretty even-handed when it came to leveling criticism on issues, even discussing 'adjunct' Republican 'party of death' members. I think it's worth our notice to consider cross-party alignments on bioethical issues. I wonder sometimes whether or not the shifts in the 'litmus tests' used for success within any given party take place because of the knowledge of past situations involving politicians' stance on issues. In this way, it could be that the litmus tests change to accommodate voter bases. (A good example of this might be the prescription drug coverage issue, the promotion of which I had thought tended to be a mark of Democratic leaning but now seems to be par for the course for Republicans as well.)
I hate to say it, but these issues aren't left/right, Democratic/Republican. Those are lies promoted by the bioethicists.
I don't care to read what a hack has to say to promote such garbage.
Winston
It's amazing how myopic you are.
- Not mandating compulsory blood donations (which can save up to three lives - forced pregnancies only save one or two lives apiece)
For someone who aggressively argues right-to-die as a privacy issue to recommend such a notion is laughable. Either you own your body or you don't, right?
Bartender, I'll have two of what Winston's having.
Susan, I'm not sure who you're referring to as a 'hack,' but I may have to respectfully disagree. I haven't read Ponnuru's book, but from Wesley's review it seems he's been fair in his coverage. To identify a major trend in the activities and platform of a given political party and then to identify members of another party with some affinity for those same stances on issues seems an excellent way to minimize the bias of 'bioethicists.'
I think you missed my point, Deep Toad.
The pro-lifers value life above everything else, so why don't they take steps to save even more lives, such as mandating blood donations for everyone who is eligible?
Probably because they'd be forced to donate.
Winston Jen said...
"I think you missed my point, Deep Toad.
The pro-lifers value life above everything else, so why don't they take steps to save even more lives, such as mandating blood donations for everyone who is eligible?"
-----------------
And you missed my point. The pro-euthanasia misfits keep arguing that the right to die is a matter of privacy. So, why don't they take steps to ensure that privacy is protected by not allowing the states to mandate someone dies?
Mandating that someone give blood or donate organs is just like saying the state owns your body. So why are you, of all people, even bringing up such a twisted idea?
Methinks you argue for the sake of arguing and don't actually know what the heck you're talking about.
"And you missed my point. The pro-euthanasia misfits keep arguing that the right to die is a matter of privacy. So, why don't they take steps to ensure that privacy is protected by not allowing the states to mandate someone dies?"
The states don't mandate that the people die. They ALLOW the patient to choose death instead of painful and ineffective chemotheraphy, radiotheraphy and inadequate palliative care.
Not to give them this choice is to mandate suffering on those unlucky enough to have cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's disease, Motor Neurone Disease and a host of others (none of which are afflicting Wesley at present).
"Mandating that someone give blood or donate organs is just like saying the state owns your body. So why are you, of all people, even bringing up such a twisted idea?"
Was that your point? Well, that shows that you value autonomy and freedom more than preserving life, so you cannot really call yourself a pro-lifer. You're pro-life when it suits you, and you'll let people die when it suits you.
"Methinks you argue for the sake of arguing and don't actually know what the heck you're talking about."
Some talk, coming from you.
Deep Toad, congratulations.
You've done it again - http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=12786
I invite - no, I DARE you to answer the responses there. And feel free to bring your pro-suffering, anti-choice friends along.
It would be an interesting social experiment.
I saw an interview about 'Party of Death' and went out immediately to buy the book even though it's a big sacrifice for me to buy a hardcover.
The 'Party of Death' mentioned is not the Democrats or the Republicans, but the pro-death forces which have made great inroads in the Democratic party.
I wish he had written more about euthanasia and 'assisted suicide' though. People just don't realize how bad it has gotten. It makes me sit here and wonder--- am I functional enough, healthy enough, and useful enough to be allowed to go on living?
And for this blog's spammer, winston jen--- why don't you write your comments in your own blog? Your poor blog is empty!
Also--- I hope your talk about unbearable suffering and the like doesn't mean that you are suffering from depression or don't feel your life is worth living. I'm praying for you.
"And for this blog's spammer, winston jen--- why don't you write your comments in your own blog? Your poor blog is empty!"
What's it to you?
"Also--- I hope your talk about unbearable suffering and the like doesn't mean that you are suffering from depression or don't feel your life is worth living. I'm praying for you."
I'm not depressed. Just realistic. Some things are better than death, regardless of what you think.
I'll reiterate - if you've EVER taken a painkiller, you have no logical or moral basis for opposing euthanasia.
Back on topic, I think N.I.A. is right. It makes more sense to think of the pro-death tendencies of the Democratic party as inroads along certain lines that may affllict the Democratic party more severely. That fact doesn't necessarily reflect positively on the Republican or any other party, though. Along these bioethical lines, any party would be in error to promote a pro-death agenda on any issue, and any party would be doing what is right to promote the opposite.
Deep Toad, congratulations again. I know that FSTDT is not a serious venue of discussion, but at least you've said something meaningful enough to upset someone. Personally, I'd prefer to stay here to discuss the issues, though, because most of us are interested in doing so instead of insulting others. Please keep it up everyone.
Winston, you're right; 'some things are better than death,' as you've said, even in the context of suffering. I can say that because I know what I mean by those words. Those words seem to be undefined in your vocabulary or at least consciously and intentionally insulated from their ultimate context within your entire world view.
Actually, the 'painkiller equals euthanasia' argument is bogus. You've demonstrated plenty of times that you're not in a position to evaluate the logic or morals of anyone. One obvious difference between what you've attempted to equate is that easing pain is not necessarily the same as ending life. I know you seem to disagree with that. Are you willing to help us understand your viewpoint without attacking anyone? What's your rationale for that? It's vague as it is.
"Winston, you're right; 'some things are better than death,' as you've said, even in the context of suffering. I can say that because I know what I mean by those words. Those words seem to be undefined in your vocabulary or at least consciously and intentionally insulated from their ultimate context within your entire world view."
There are also things worse than death (and I'm not talking about a religious hell). Do you deny that?
The simple fact is that if life was ALWAYS worth living, suicide would not exist. That seems to be your position, but you haven't been able to convince people - suicide still exists, and it still is a problem.
"Actually, the 'painkiller equals euthanasia' argument is bogus. You've demonstrated plenty of times that you're not in a position to evaluate the logic or morals of anyone. One obvious difference between what you've attempted to equate is that easing pain is not necessarily the same as ending life. I know you seem to disagree with that. Are you willing to help us understand your viewpoint without attacking anyone? What's your rationale for that? It's vague as it is."
If you've taken painkillers, then you see no problem with eliminating suffering for yourself. In many situations at the end of life, the ONLY way to relieve suffering is by death. Why deny them this option?
Winston, once again you're asking questions with hazy terms. What do you mean by 'death,' given that you're not talking about what you're calling a 'religious hell'? Furthermore, it seems you're at least radically dissociating 'death' from 'religious hell.' Are you certain that's even a valid distinction?
I know that you're in no position to explain my 'position,' as you've called it, because you don't seem to have a clear understanding of how someone with my 'position' would define a variety of terms. So far, you've avoided listening for that understanding. Beyond that, you don't know who, if anybody, I've convinced of anything.
What you're really saying is that, because suicide does in fact occur in the world, it follows that life is not always worth living. It doesn't take a very wise person to realize that conclusion doesn't follow from the existence of suicide. What you've done is allow your presupposition of inviolable opinion (a.k.a. ultimate autonomy) to crop up where it causes an illogical argument. The judgment that life is not worth living is one of opinion, which you've defined as inviolable, but which the common intuition and reasoning of humanity recognize as fallible.
Don't forget that there are times when people embrace suffering, opting not to take painkillers. In such cases, they willingly forego pain relief because of some aim that transcends the pain and discomfort. You seem to think that nothing transcends pain and discomfort, so that when the 'level' is 'sufficiently high' one should end one's life rather than face that which can't be transcended. That's exactly why others here have noted that your viewpoint doesn't account for realities that are clearly acknowledged rationally, intuitively, and emotionally by the vast majority of humanity throughout history.
So they forgo painkillers. Good for them. It doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to do so, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that they don't have their limits WRT pain.
Who's forcing who to forego painkillers? Please explain that to me.
You seem to miss an obvious point: pain, suffering and death are universal and not exclusive to those people who are terminally ill. Following the formula you put forth, it would make sense for all of us who decide that life is not worth living to be euthanized. According what I perceive as your worldview, it isn't up to anyone else but the person suffering. So should that person be legally denied an easy death? I should hope so. The law isn't in place for our convenience, but for our protection and you seem to misunderstand that fact. Would you apply your theory of ultimate autonomy to prostitution or narcotics? I would hope not. (I hope this comment doesn't spark any off topic discussions on prostitution or narcotics, these were merely examples).
"Who's forcing who to forego painkillers? Please explain that to me."
No one, but palliative care and voluntary euthanasia are both motivated by compassion.
The hypocrisy I was pointing out was that if you have ever reduced your suffering in any way, you would not be justified in opposing voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide.
"You seem to miss an obvious point: pain, suffering and death are universal and not exclusive to those people who are terminally ill. Following the formula you put forth, it would make sense for all of us who decide that life is not worth living to be euthanized."
Fortunately, for most people, suffering can be relieved without death.
No sane person would choose death unless they had no other alternative.
And in my view, half-assed palliative care is as good as nothing, because it doesn't keep the patient comfortable.
"According what I perceive as your worldview, it isn't up to anyone else but the person suffering. So should that person be legally denied an easy death? I should hope so. The law isn't in place for our convenience, but for our protection and you seem to misunderstand that fact."
Forcing people to die naturally leads to discrimination. Some die painlessly in their sleep, while others linger for weeks or months waiting for the end.
That is why many terminally ill people commit suicide before they are physically unable to do so.
"Would you apply your theory of ultimate autonomy to prostitution or narcotics? I would hope not."
What's wrong with prostitution or recreational drug use, as long as there is no exploitation, and the industry is safe? I don't see anything wrong. They certainly aren't hurting anyone.
"(I hope this comment doesn't spark any off topic discussions on prostitution or narcotics, these were merely examples)."
And they're also victimless crimes.
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/
Thanks for the response to my comment.
"The hypocrisy I was pointing out was that if you have ever reduced your suffering in any way, you would not be justified in opposing voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide."
That's an interesting conclusion. That's likes saying if you have ever taken a pen from your coworkers desk, then you are not justified in opposing thievery. We can apply that kind of logic to all sorts of absurd circumstances. Thankfully, morality is not based on that formula.
It seems to me that one of our disagreements centers on how we define suffering and purpose. I say that death is the end of suffering; that happiness and purpose are not absent in suffering; and that suffering is universal, and unavoidable in this lifetime. Would you agree or disagree?
I agree with you when you say half-assed palliative care is good as nothing. That's why people who provide half-assed palliative care can be punished by the law. I don't agree with you when you say dying naturally leads to discrimination. I need that one explained.
discrimination
n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
Would death be discriminating people who are dying, or would we be discriminating the dying?
"Thanks for the response to my comment."
You're very welcome.
"That's an interesting conclusion. That's likes saying if you have ever taken a pen from your coworkers desk, then you are not justified in opposing thievery. We can apply that kind of logic to all sorts of absurd circumstances. Thankfully, morality is not based on that formula."
Thievery hurts others. Euthanasia doesn't - harm is subjective, and even if my family wants me to live, they have NO RIGHT to hook me up to life support or a feeding tube against my will, so there's nothing wrong with self-starvation, according to you. What, then, is wrong with a lethal injection or a pill to get it over with?
"It seems to me that one of our disagreements centers on how we define suffering and purpose. I say that death is the end of suffering; that happiness and purpose are not absent in suffering; and that suffering is universal, and unavoidable in this lifetime. Would you agree or disagree?"
Not everyone believes that suffering is ALWAYS good and meaningful, and even those who do so (Mother Theresa, for example) do not tolerate THEIR OWN suffering - they get flown to the best hospitals and given the best treatment, while hypocritically opposing contraception, which would alleviate the problem of overpopulation there.
So, if you want to reduce your suffering, don't stand in the way of those who want to end it completely.
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."
"I agree with you when you say half-assed palliative care is good as nothing. That's why people who provide half-assed palliative care can be punished by the law. I don't agree with you when you say dying naturally leads to discrimination. I need that one explained."
See below. Yes, doctors do get sued and families get awarded large amounts in damages, but doctors are still scared of giving enough. They don't want the patient to suffer, but neither do they want to get charged with "murder" for giving lethal doses when nothing else will cut it.
"discrimination
n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
Would death be discriminating people who are dying, or would we be discriminating the dying?"
Forcing people to die a natural death leads to some people dying painlessly and others dying in great pain.
The only way to overcome this discrimination is to give EVERYONE access to a painless death, not just doctors, vets and the rich.
Suppose A is a universe (in the mathematical sense of the word), and X, Y,... inf. are included in said universe. Suppose then, there exists subsets of A: a1, a2, and a3. a1:[X, Y], a2:[d] and a3:[inf]. Suppose that X is less than Y, and that d is between X and Y. So the questions are, does d exist in a1, does X exist in a2, and does a3 = Universe A? The answers to these questions are all no, and it should be mathematically obvious (except for a3 = A, if they were equal you'd get 1, but you can't divide inf. by inf. and get 1).
The proof above demonstrates how morality is based on frameworks. While it is true that taking painkillers and assisted suicide both relieve suffering, they exist as two independent actions. The same can be applied to taking an office pen and stealing money, while both are stealing by definition, they also exist as two independent actions. So you can't base your conclusion of "what's wrong with getting a lethal injection, or taking a pill" based on other circumstances that may be similar because they are two independent actions.
I said that suffering is universal, I never made any claim that suffering is always good and meaningful. If anything, I think suffering shows a dysfunctional universe. People's suffering ends completely upon death no matter when it happens, so I don't see the point in hastening death if all they are looking forward to is the release from pain and suffering, because pleasure and happiness can easily coexist is pain and suffering. It seems to me that you assume that if you have one, you can't have the other.
Stealing is "independent" in that one person can do it, but it does have a victim - the rightful owner. Assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia has no victim.
I was not saying "If you have one, you cannot have the other." I was saying that not everyone suffers at all times. Some people live for years or even decades without even so much as a paper cut (such as Wesley Smith here). While "pleasure and happiness can easily coexist with pain and suffering", it is often rare for that to be the case, which is why most people try and get rid of their suffering. You also seem to believe that people can endure ANY amount of suffering, which is clearly false.
Maybe I'm not being clear (which is probably the case...), the point of that demonstration was to say that you can't justify an action based on another action with a less severe consequence (well, I suppose you could... it just doesn't follow logic), because action Y doesn't necessarily incorporate the summation of all actions and consequences that exist on whatever spectrum before it. Y exists independently from X.
I agree that voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide are victimless crimes per se; however, that isn't justification of the legalization of either.
"I was not saying 'If you have one, you cannot have the other.'"
Sorry for misunderstanding your comment.
I do disagree with you when you say "not everyone suffers at all times." I suppose we aren't suffering to the point of emotional or physical discomfort at all times, but as you stated in an earlier comment, "harm is subjective," and I will hold to the idea that suffering is as well. There is no point in talking about suffering from personal circumstance, except to acknowledge the fact that it is universal and that it is experienced at varying degrees by each individual person. It is also important to acknowledge that each person has a different threshold for suffering, so it isn't fair to judge how much someone has suffered based on their principles. It's easy to point out that someone, somewhere has circumstances more dire than someone elses, especially being in good health.
To summarize: Can people endure endless amounts of suffering? Sure, depending on the definition. Likewise, does it hold true that people aren't suffering at all times? Also true, depending on the definition. Is it fair to judge how much people have suffered according to the subjective nature of suffering? Nope.
I still fail to see the prejudice that occurs when "forcing people to die naturally."
This discussion has gotten off-track. Sorry folks...
Dan, I hold that no one should be forced to suffer against their will. Many terminal illnesses have many different psychological pains that cannot be alleviated by palliative care unless the patient is put into a coma.
Back on the subject: Does Ramesh criticize Bush for passing the Texas Futile Care Act?
Someone else's comment on this issue:
"The Texas Advanced Directives Act was actually co-crafted by the Texas Right to Life and National Right to Life organizations. Their initial aim was to provide some legal protections for people in the situations we have discussed, as none existed in Texas prior to that. The new law gave some measures such as insisting on an ethics committee decision, and giving families 10 days to find an alternate care facility. However, the law had some flaws, in particular the glaringly obvious fact that poor people with no health insurance are not going to be able to find another care facility within 10 days. They probably won't find one at all.
The law works fine for the rich, but does not help the poor. This was either an accidental oversight by the lawmakers, or a deliberate one. If it was deliberate, then it would have to have involved donations from hospitals and/or their shareholders, and if that was the case, some enterprising reporter would have probably ferretted that out by now.
That leaves accidental oversight - a mistake. Since we know pretty well how Bush handles his own mistakes (he ignores them and pretends he doesn't make any) that would explain his silence on the issue, and the silence of his supporters.
Of course, there is always the possibility that it was a deliberate oversight due to the Texas Republican party not caring about poor people. There are many critics of the Republican's compassion level for poor people...
LL"
It doesn't make a difference. I will continue to say we suffer against our will anyway, and you will continue to say that it is within our control. The point is moot because our criteria for suffering is different; however, neither is right or wrong (curse you subjectivity!!!).
Whoa, we have a magnanimous event: Someone (me) agrees with Winston on an issue! We should get our pictures taken with the president (wait...).
"It doesn't make a difference. I will continue to say we suffer against our will anyway, and you will continue to say that it is within our control. The point is moot because our criteria for suffering is different; however, neither is right or wrong (curse you subjectivity!!!)."
Forcing people to suffer is inherently wrong. If you were in the WTC on 9/11, what would you do if someone tried to jump out the window rather than stay and burn to death? Would you tackle them and say that they were being immoral? Or that they should cling to an impossible hope?
"Whoa, we have a magnanimous event: Someone (me) agrees with Winston on an issue! We should get our pictures taken with the president (wait...)."
Very funny.
I refer you to the proof above... X (jumping out of a burning building) is independent from Y (voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide). This has already been established, so could you please establish a case for voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide without referring to independent circumstances.
It is also odd that you have taken a moment in time and applied the outcome of the event to the moment previous to the outcome of the event, when in reality we would not know the outcome of the event in the situation you described because it hadn't happened yet. This is faulty reasoning; However, I'll bite: if we did know the outcome of the event (that we would inevitably die) what difference would it make if we jumped or if we stayed? Suffering is inconsequential either way because the process of dying would be indiscriminate.
Very well. If people cannot be helped to die, they have no choice but to commit suicide early if they are afraid of suffering horribly. Even the best palliative care can do little to palliate many psychological symptoms associated with terminal and chronic pain. The "best" they can do is put them into a coma so they are unaware of the pain.
Therefore, to prevent violent suicides and relieve the anxiety of patients, it is important to give them the assistance they need and want.
Listen to this if you still doubt it:
http://www.dwdvictoria.org.au/MediaFiles/SteveGuestThanksRodneySyme.mp3
If violent suicide provides a death without discrimination, why do we need to add another system whereby patients can terminate their lives? There are many positive consequences to legalizing violent suicide over assisted suicide:
1. There is no victim
2. Patients remain autonomous, aren't forced to trust doctors with their deaths
3. No hospital bills
4. No lingering around, waiting to die in a bed
5. Avoids the inefficient bureaucratic process of trying to regulate voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide.
6. Samaurai did it.
7. Assisted suicide causes more pain than a shotgun blow to the face (which is instantaneous).
8. Allows the patient to decide when he/she has suffered enough.
I am aware of the absurdity of the above paragraph. Would you feel as though is is adequate justification for the legalization of violent suicide (especially #6...)? It's how I feel you are trying to justify the legalization of voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide. Allow me to demonstrate:
1. Palliative care doesn't provide relief to those scared of suffering
2. Palliative care doesn't alleviate psychological suffering
3. The best pain killing methods palliative care has to offer is putting patients in a coma.
4. Since palliative care is ineffective, voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide should be legal because that's the care patients want.
Right, I forgot my point:
It's easy to presuppose your viewpoint is right and mine for the evidence to support your view (that's what modern academia is all about...); it is also logically unsound.
"If violent suicide provides a death without discrimination, why do we need to add another system whereby patients can terminate their lives? There are many positive consequences to legalizing violent suicide over assisted suicide:
1. There is no victim
2. Patients remain autonomous, aren't forced to trust doctors with their deaths
3. No hospital bills
4. No lingering around, waiting to die in a bed
5. Avoids the inefficient bureaucratic process of trying to regulate voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide.
6. Samaurai did it.
7. Assisted suicide causes more pain than a shotgun blow to the face (which is instantaneous).
8. Allows the patient to decide when he/she has suffered enough."
There are many disadvantages as well.
1. Many cancers make the sufferer too weak to commit suicide at all, unless they get help.
2. Violent suicides must be done before physical incapacity is lost.
3. The elderly must kill themselves before they get a stroke or other paralyzing/debilitating condition.
4. Patients remain autonomous, but they still face the risks of botching it and ending up in an even worse situation. Drugs are required to remove this risk.
5. Violent suicides harm others. People who throw themselves in front of trains cause trauma to the train driver.
6. If they want revenge, they'll commit suicide by cop, most likely at a pro-life rally.
7. Assisted suicide causes NO pain - the drugs put the patient to sleep within a minute.
8. The patient is in control, not the doctor (which is what happens today).
"It's easy to presuppose your viewpoint is right and mine for the evidence to support your view (that's what modern academia is all about...); it is also logically unsound."
You are the one being logically unsound AND intellectually dishonest.
Why should I be forced to go overseas to die painlessly? I don't trust palliative care as much as you do. I can afford a trip, but I'd rather leave the money to charity than travel there.
Doctors aren't being forced to do anything - they can get the lethal drugs at any time.
You aren't being forced to do anything - you would remain free to die naturally. Choosing to die naturally IS STILL A CHOICE! It shouldn't be a choice of suicide or dying naturally.
"I am aware of the absurdity of the above paragraph. Would you feel as though is is adequate justification for the legalization of violent suicide (especially #6...)? It's how I feel you are trying to justify the legalization of voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide. Allow me to demonstrate:
1. Palliative care doesn't provide relief to those scared of suffering
2. Palliative care doesn't alleviate psychological suffering
3. The best pain killing methods palliative care has to offer is putting patients in a coma.
4. Since palliative care is ineffective, voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide should be legal because that's the care patients want."
1. That's because they only put a patient into a coma as a last resort.
2. It certainly doesn't in many cases. A study in South Australia in 1992 (South Australian Select Committee on the Law and Practice Relating to Death and Dying, Final Report, 1992) showed the following disturbing results.
3% of severe cases of weakness were helped by treatment.
11% of severe loss of appetite cases.
0% of severe weight loss cases.
75% of severe pain (it's much better now, but it's STILL NOT PERFECT).
42% of severe constipation cases were helped.
63% of severe cases of trouble sleeping.
14% of severe coughing.
0% of severe confusion.
40% of fluid retention.
25% of all other symptoms.
3. This is often the case. If the patient is awake, they are suffering. Sadly, this isn't always done effectively, and the patient often wakes up.
4. Correct. They want the choice, and just HAVING the choice as an option reduces their anxiety, and some are able to die naturally, as has been the case in Oregon.
Yeah, but samurai's committed suicide violently. So I win. Ha.
I admitted the list was absurd, and I obviously spun it off the top of my head. I was demonstrating you your methodology in the matter. Your logic starts with "assume I'm right" and then proceeds to give all answers supporting the fact that you think you are right, while ignoring the circumstances in which you would be wrong (i.e. your palliative care examples. I can go to a website and pull up wonderful experiences families have had with hospices.)
How can you accuse me of being logically unsound and intellectually dishonest when you are assuming most of your ideas on constant sum games (when in fact, your examples have counter-examples and are therefore zero-sum games), faulty definitions of autonomy, and faulty ideas of morality? I haven't been advantageously defining subjective principles to support convoluted views (your definitions of suffering are subjective, but you seem to believe that they are the standard by which all other definitions can be judged), making accusations about how much others have suffered (your comments about Wesley not suffering anything more than a paper cut), and it seems to me you care more about being argumentative than supporting your view (the fact that you took Deep Toad's comment and posted it on FSTDT doesn't serve to your advantage.) How have you been logically sound or intellecutally honest?
I should note that the only reason I started posting on this website is because I was tired of your consistent belligerence to those who disagree with your view. Your pretentious elitism doesn't serve well to educate others on the subject material; it serves to isolate the audience you have so desperately tried to reach at this website.
The fact that you are going to die is out of your control, so what difference does it make if you are flown overseas to have a "painless death", or if you remain in the U.S. to linger about for a bit? Why do we need to legalize autonomous control over they way people die when dying is what they will do anyways?
With this post, I end my career on this blog. Respond if you wish, I will offer nothing more.
"The fact that you are going to die is out of your control, so what difference does it make if you are flown overseas to have a "painless death", or if you remain in the U.S. to linger about for a bit? Why do we need to legalize autonomous control over they way people die when dying is what they will do anyways?"
They shouldn't be forced to die naturally. Everyone should have the right to die peacefully and painlessly, if that's what they want.
I do not deny the fact that palliative care is a good thing, and that it can help many people. What I am trying to say is that there are people that CANNOT be helped with conventional palliative care, and that is why voluntary euthanasia is necessary. Pointing out the cases where palliative care has work does not do anything for those who cannot be helped, and it certainly doesn't make the requests for euthanasia go away.
I realize I said I'd stop, but I am too frustrated with your last comment to let it go. I had to admit, your last statement gave me a lot to think about; however, I found a flaw in your reasoning.
You use the evidence in the study as a basis for supporting voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide, which is perfectly applicable; however, it is just as reasonable to take the evidence you provided and come to the conclusion that end of life care can be held to a higher standard. If palliative care is improved to the point where the suffering of patients is truly minimized, would you still support voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide? You obviously wouldn't need to, especially if end of life care was %100 satisfactory for the patients dying and their families. If this were the case, it seems to me that the necessity you see for voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide would disappear.
I think I can retire now. This discussion has been exercised to the point of exhaustion.
"You use the evidence in the study as a basis for supporting voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide, which is perfectly applicable; however, it is just as reasonable to take the evidence you provided and come to the conclusion that end of life care can be held to a higher standard. If palliative care is improved to the point where the suffering of patients is truly minimized, would you still support voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide?"
Yes, I would still support it. "Minimization" already happens now, although the level of relief does not always measure up to the patient's standards. Don't forget the undesirable effects of morphine, such as a coma, which the patient may not want.
Additionally, you have no right to force people to be guinea pigs for palliative care methods.
Bob Dent said the following, "I have no wish for further experimentation by the palliative care people in their efforts to control my pain. My current program involves taking 30 tablets a day! For months I have been on a roller-coaster of pain made worse by the unwanted side effects of the drugs. Morphine causes constipation - laxatives taken work erratically, often resulting in loss of bowel control in the middle of the night. I have to have a rubber sheet on my bed, like a child who is not yet toilet-trained. Other drugs given to enhance the pain-relieving effects of the morphine have caused me to feel suicidal to the point that I would have blown my head off if I had had a gun.
If I were to be a pet animal in the same condition I am in, I would be prosecuted. What right has anyone, because of their own religious faith, to demand that I behave according to the rules until some omniscient doctor decides that I must have had enough and goes ahead and increases my morphine until I die?
I read with increasing horror newspaper stories of Kevin Andrew's attempt to overturn the most compassionate piece of legislation in the world. (Actually, my wife has to read the newspaper stories to me as I can longer focus my eyes.) If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but don't deny me the right to use it if and when I want to."
"You obviously wouldn't need to, especially if end of life care was %100 satisfactory for the patients dying and their families. If this were the case, it seems to me that the necessity you see for voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide would disappear."
But this will never happen, because anti-euthanasia laws have the unintended sided effects of scaring doctors and nurses to the point that they do not prescribe enough morphine.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that someday there is a palliative treatment that relieves pain, doesn't kill and has no side effects. What would we do UNTIL THEN? According to Wesley, we should let them (i.e. MAKE them) suffer. Oregon's assisted suicide law has motivated staff to improve their care, because they know that patients have assisted suicde as an option if palliative care is insufficent.
Winston:
Obviously, the continuation of this discussion remains important to you, which is fine, and I'm willing to discuss it further. I will suggest that maybe we pull off this venue and continue this discussion somewhere else. My reasons for this are two-fold:
1. I'm up to my ears in work and I don't want to make checking this blog a priority. I have also been very casual with my arguments here and I would like to dedicate some more time to prepare.
2. We are being incredibly rude to the other people on this blog by monopolizing the discussion.
If you are interested in continuing the discussion, you (or anyone really) can reach me at The_fake_address_of_dan@hotmail.com. If you can't tell by the name, it's not my real email address, I'll give you one if you decide to continue.
You two don't need to worry about monopolizing the conversation if no one else is posting. I, for one, don't mind in the least if you keep the discussion in the thread.
Post a Comment
<< Home