There is a good way to resolve a large part of the debate over legalizing physician-assisted suicide.
Two powerful establishments — religions that seek to spread dogma by force and some elements of the medical industry — have ferociously opposed any suggestion that individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to spend their final days in agony.
There is no reconciliation possible for the religion-based opposition. If we allow terminally ill people to decide for themselves how and when to die, it follows that people should be allowed to think for themselves in general , which would be an anathema to tyrannical clerics.
What interests me about this and similar blasts from proponents of assisted suicide is how little respect they give to the democratic process. I remember very well a Democrat raging at me – literally raging at me – ‘How dare the Catholic Church tell us that we may not choose to end our life.’ I replied that the Catholic Church was part of the nation, and therefore entitled to participate in the debates of civil society and to influence debates. We called it democracy, I added. He simply ignored what I said and continued repeating the rant. I wonder: would such people happily suppress debate? I think so – and to judge from the tenor of this article, I suspect that this writer might do so also.
Forgive me putting an addendum here. How ironic that this writer speaks about religion as ‘spreading dogma by force’. Note how this treats well-reasoned, articulate and pragmatic contributions against euthanasia from any religion. He reduces their arguments to ‘dogma’ and thus they may be insgtantly dismissed as worthless. Isn’t it his way of arguing that is dogmatic and forceful?
[blockquote]Also, the medical industry loves to spout parts of the Hippocratic oath, which says doctors must never do harm or dispense deadly drugs. However, the same section of that oath also forbids abortion, and I do not see the medical industry getting into a snit over that profitable enterprise.[/blockquote]
He has a point, however I don’t think he has a problem with abortion. I do and the author has inadvertently reminded me of one more reason against abortion. What concerns me is the merging of the emerging argument for assisted suicide and national health care. Logan’s Run, here we come.
I don’t care what an individual does – that is between that person and God. I do care about what the state is given power to do – and I object to the state giving doctors the power to murder.
I do care about what an individual does. I have sat with too many people in nursing homes and hospitals as they get ready to die. There is a spiritual component to natural death that I don’t perceive in drug induced death. As the body starts to naturally shut down, I have seen people make amends, offer confessions that stem from a realization that physical processes have run their course and they are about to move on. We short change mankind when we play God on the front end of life (abortion) and at the backend (death); knowing what a sinner I am, I have no desire to fool my fellow human being with any sense that I can substitute my judgement for God’s.
In our society, we are no longer persons. We are “functions.” The first question we normally ask someone is “so, what do you do?”
Our society seems to believe that if a person is not contributing to society (e.g. functioning on behalf of society) he or she can be terminated. Thus, we have abortion and the “right (duty) to die.” We lock up lawbreakers in prisons where they normally get an education in how to be more effective criminals and we make no attempt to rehabilitate them. There are voices out there that say a woman should be able to kill her small children (because they cannot contribute to society).
This is just another cut into our personhood.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#5 Capt Deacon Warren, you’re right. I was too harsh in my comment. I do care about individuals – what I meant was that if someone decides that he or she is ready to take their own life, that is ultimately between that person and God, not between that person and the State or their own doctor.
[blockquote]Two powerful establishments — religions that seek to spread dogma by force and some elements of the medical industry[/blockquote]
By force? What does he have in mind? That we are amassing machine guns and grenades for a final assault against those with whom we disagree? Carpenter’s painting of those who are “religious” is a classic demonstration of why reason should never be placed at the zenith of anything. For anyone to make outrageous statements like he makes without a semblance of evidence to back up his claims is unconscionable and frankly demonstrates laziness on his part. And if it isn’t laziness, it suggests much worse about his ability to craft a cogent argument.