Aussie Columnist Gains Wisdom About Euthanasia
This is an interesting column from the Adelaide Sunday Mail. (I was in Adelaide in 2001; lovely town.)
When an elderly Australian woman went to Switzerland to die by what has come to be called "suicide tourism, columnist Amanda Blair intended to write an adamantly pro-euthanasia column that would be percolating with the idealized ideology of "choice." But then, she had a heart-to-heart with her physician husband, and began to see that the reality of mercy killing and the context in which it would actually carried out, would not be as simple and easy as she had thought.
She came away from the conversation, not against euthanasia exactly, but confused and with a more realistic understanding of the dangers that euthanasia consciousness poses.
Good for her for struggling with this important issue. I hope she continues to ponder deeply and explore the pros and cons, potential benefits and profound dangers of assisted suicide, and comes to see what a disaster the so-called "right to die" would be in the long run to the disabled, the sick, the elderly, the dying--and more fundamentally--to society's willingness to defend the intrinsic worth of all human life.
I have always said: The more people know about euthanasia, the less they tend to like it. This column is a case in point.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:23 PM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
Hmmm... if there were such dangers, and if the public really opposed it, surely they would convict doctors who were charged, and pleaded guilty, correct?
Maybe you're implying that juries in Australia and elsewhere are shirking their civic duties, and they judges are giving tacit approval to the practice by dispensing only suspended sentences, right?
Sometimes these cases result in guilty pleas/verdicts, and sometimes not. Sometimes there is jury nullification. Sometimes prosecutors decide to exercise their discretion and not prosecute.
I think the juries that refused to convict Kevorkian, for example, did shirk their duty and relied overly on emotional appeals.
A criminal court room is not a place to decide public policy. It is about whether a defendant can be found to have committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The article is good precisely because the writer's first impulse is to support euthanasia. But unlike you, she sees the very real difficulties, and not being an ideologue, it gave her great pause.
"Sometimes these cases result in guilty pleas/verdicts, and sometimes not. Sometimes there is jury nullification. Sometimes prosecutors decide to exercise their discretion and not prosecute."
Ah, but they rarely get anything more than a slap on the wrist and public recognition of their cause.
"I think the juries that refused to convict Kevorkian, for example, did shirk their duty and relied overly on emotional appeals."
I think it shows that your statement, "
The more people know about euthanasia, the less they tend to like it."
It doesn't always happen.
I bet that even YOU would change your tune if you are in great pain and palliative care has failed you.
"A criminal court room is not a place to decide public policy. It is about whether a defendant can be found to have committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt."
And yet Kevorkian confessed to many assisted suicides and was acquitted many times. Hmmmm...
By the way, do you respect the laws in the US that guarantee a woman's right to an abortion?
"The article is good precisely because the writer's first impulse is to support euthanasia. But unlike you, she sees the very real difficulties, and not being an ideologue, it gave her great pause."
Very funny. I have read arguments against it. They are weak, and similar arguments were used to support slavery.
If you're going to outlaw something, you should punish the lawbreakers. Too bad for you, but society rarely does that with euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Winston: "Hmmm... if there were such dangers, and if the public really opposed it, surely they would convict doctors who were charged, and pleaded guilty, correct?"
You're ignoring a very obvious possibility: People don't realize the dangers, and don't understand what the full implementation of legalization would entail.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kevorkian is in jail, Winston Jen. Others have been, too. Your embrace of lawbreaking is telling. Some bankrobbers aren't convicted, either. Some child abusers aren't convicted. Some murderers--think OJ--get off.
Your logic is as faulty as your ethics.
"You're ignoring a very obvious possibility: People don't realize the dangers, and don't understand what the full implementation of legalization would entail."
What about the ACTUAL and REAL benefits that legalization would entai, which include peace of mind, control over one's own death and suffering, living longer, lower suicide rates among the terminally ill and vast improvements in palliative care?
"Kevorkian is in jail, Winston Jen. Others have been, too."
Of course I know this. What's your point? It took them years to convict Jack, and jail time is the exception, not the rule, in euthanasia cases.
"Your embrace of lawbreaking is telling. Some bankrobbers aren't convicted, either. Some child abusers aren't convicted. Some murderers--think OJ--get off."
Um... child abuse, bank robbing and murders are not victimless crimes. Voluntary euthanasia IS a victimless crime and there are no reasons to criminalize it.
Another difference with mercy killing is that they usually get off EVEN IF THEY CONFESS and even if the evidence shows that they did it.
"Your logic is as faulty as your ethics."
What, you mean how I respect people's rights to CHOOSE when to die? What's so bad about that? Are trains and high buildings government-assisted suicide?
People have a right to commit suicide, and they also have the right not to botch it and end up in an even worse situation.
Also, Wesley, if you believe that the law should ALWAYS be obeyed, you're essentially saying that the Germans who turned over Jews to the authorities were doing the right thing. After all, Hitler was democratically elected.
If you can't tell the difference between laws enacted in a democratic society to save lives and laws enacted to destroy Jews, there is no point in carrying on any further discussion.
"If you can't tell the difference between laws enacted in a democratic society to save lives and laws enacted to destroy Jews, there is no point in carrying on any further discussion."
The Nazis were democratically elected.
Laws against assisted suicide increase suffering. They don't "save" any lives.
All they do is encourage people to jump off buildings or walk in front of a train WHILE THEY ARE STILL ABLE, to end their suffering.
Source on Nazi Germany: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=102585813125825400&q=despotism+video
Wesley, your side might be able to fool the dumb masses into voting your way, but you fail when you have to convince twelve jurors that consider all the facts from both sides.
Winston: "Wesley, your side might be able to fool the dumb masses into voting your way, but you fail when you have to convince twelve jurors that consider all the facts from both sides."
So now the "masses" are "dumb" and vote "[our] way"? This from the guy who has repeatedly said the public wants euthanasia, and that we must bow to its obvious wisdom?
Me: "You're ignoring a very obvious possibility: People don't realize the dangers, and don't understand what the full implementation of legalization would entail."
Winston: "What about the ACTUAL and REAL benefits that legalization would entai[l]..."
Winston, we were discussing whether or not the public was aware of "such dangers," not dangers versus benefits. But like usual, you're more interested in rhetorical bashing than substantive discussion.
In any case, I suspect people generally don't think much at all about the broader implications of euthanasia, be they positive or negative. Most are like the columnist in question, who simply have a knee-jerk emotional response of "Living like that would be terrible, I want to be able to kill myself!" and leave it at that, not thinking at all about how it would be implemented and to what it might lead.
Wesley: "Your logic is as faulty as your ethics."
Winston: "What, you mean how I respect people's rights to CHOOSE when to die?"
Winston, do you even know what the word "logic" means? Your reply is totally irrelevant. If you spent more time actually trying to understand what your opponents are saying rather than dashing off the first sarcastic, self-righteous comeback that pops into your head, we would take you much more seriously.
Winston: "Um... child abuse, bank robbing and murders are not victimless crimes. Voluntary euthanasia IS a victimless crime and there are no reasons to criminalize it."
Yet again, you're missing Mr. Smith's actual point. Regardless, what constitutes a "victim" in your opinion? Is the only thing to consider someone who is directly and immediately harmed by a given act? Or can the broader context be considered as well?
Let's take the issue of hard drugs. The poorest arguments stay at the level of the individual, i.e. either "I can do whatever I want to myself" or "It harms the users". These suffer from an extreme narrowness of vision that sheds little light for adults who have to make actual policy decisions in the real world. The better arguments against legalization bring in consideration of the destructive societal effects of hard-core drug use, and the better ones for it bring in consideration of the cost and impact of enforcing a ban. In other words, crude measures of "victimhood" do little to guide us because they ignore the actual context of these things.
Post a Comment
<< Home