Posted on 09/11/2010 1:46:51 PM PDT by wagglebee
There's an all-party panel of Quebec politicians travelling across that province to gather public opinion on the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The hearings are aptly titled "Dying with Dignity," but since the right-to-kill crowd long ago co-opted that phrase to mean the individual right to choose the time and means of one's own death, there's little doubt which side of life the hearings will be biased toward.
After just one day of testimony, the press gave front-page coverage to the story of Laurent Rouleau. He was wheelchair bound and had lived for 15 years with multiple sclerosis. One day last June, he took out a hunting rifle and ended his life. It's a shocking story, made even more emotional as his wife told the committee that her husband "had to find a way to die before he was a complete prisoner of his body."
Such stories touch our hearts, but they also tend to push us into the erroneous belief that if we could be in complete control until the end, death would come in a sweet, neat package.
But tucked into the back pages of the papers is another story of a 48-year-old Ontario minister whose medical treatment -- or lack of it -- has been at the centre of controversy. In April, he suffered a heart attack that left him deprived of oxygen and brain damaged. Despite visible signs of progress, the hospital made the decision to withdraw nutrition from him in June. The family appealed the decision and the nutrition was returned to him.
But a capacity and consent board refused to acknowledge a family member as his substitute decision maker (SDM) and instead appointed a family friend. However, the board made the appointment contingent on his agreement that the nutrition tubes be removed. That is, 'you can be his SDM as long as you make the decisions we want.'
No news on why such a board is allowed to make these kind of demands a condition of being appointed as a SDM. But the tubes were removed and the minister died this week.
If the pressure from the board was strong enough to remove life support from a patient -- against the family's wishes -- in an age when euthanasia is illegal, it's frightening to think how strong that pressure would be if euthanasia was a legal option. It can easily be argued that the above are extreme examples -- because they are. The problem is, extreme cases become the basis of bad laws.
So the Quebec panel would do well to dispense with hearing the individual cases that evoke an emotional response and focus on the facts that relate to euthanasia. Thanks to a laissez-faire commitment to life in the Netherlands over the past 30 years, we have plenty of them.
While individual stories emphasize that we have the right to self-determination and the state has an obligation to respect my right to autonomy, a 1999 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics reported that almost 20 per cent of all euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands occurred without the patient's explicit request. So much for autonomy and choice.
While individual stories emphasize that uncontrollable pain is a main reason for legalizing euthanasia, this journal reported that pain is rarely the cause for the request. Instead it is a vague fear of a loss of dignity.
Individual stories will also emphasize that this is "my body" and this decision only affects me. But it becomes a public act when killing is legislated and when it involves the assistance of another. It would diminish the measure of trust that is required for any healthy physician/ patient relationship and that would impact all of us.
Stories emphasize individuals whose choices will not impact society, but the facts from the Netherlands show that, once started, a culture of death can't be controlled. The Netherlands started with euthanasia for competent adults who were terminally ill. Just two decades later, the law covers depressed adults (with no physical illness), incompetent adults whom others believe probably want to die and disabled babies. Those over 16 can obtain euthanasia without parental consent and the latest move is to grant a final exit to those over 70 who simply want to end their lives. In short, there's plenty to think about the next time the news promotes an emotional story about suicide.
It is a far more slippery slope than most people want to admit.
Pro-Life Ping
Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Every person had a purpose in coming to earth, and only the God of the Bible has the authority as to when and how each person’s time here is up. As to birth and death, the government wants to usurp that power!
Euthanasia made its first widespread appearance in the West in Nazi Germany. Hitler thought it was a great idea to save the state money by killing off “useless eaters.”
In this day of big government healthcare, nothing could be more dangerous than this business of dying with dignity, which is to say, killing off the old and the handicapped in order to save the government money.
Money which they will use to pay for free healthcare for illegals, who can be counted on to vote for them.
It is illusory to think that big government can be separated from the moral issues. They want to control your money, and they can do so much more easily when they are in a position to control your lives.
I know this is a slippery slope, but having watched my grandfather for months slowly dieing while we stood by and could do nothing for the pain was horrible also.
I have stood outside abortion clinics and protested, but for a grown adult who wakes up every day wanting it to be their last due to unmanageable pain or a disease eating at their mind I believe that is a completely different topic. We all know that some doctors will help a patient along at the end, letting it be official is something a free society should consider.
Do you also disapprove of capital punishment?
Would not surprise me if Euthanasia was already legal in Canada.
Apparently after his heart attack the minister could only speak a few words in English to the doctors, but could converse normally in his native language, on the phone with his sister. Remember when they killed Terry Shiavo because she couldn’t tell them not to? Well this poor guy could’ve said no in his native language but not English. So the standard for calling someone vegetative has now grown to - If we can’t understand ‘em we can kill ‘em!!! Slippery indeed - more like any icy slope when the sun comes out.
He had also regained movement in his legs and arms, this despite being starved. Imagine what he might have done with nutrition, therapy and people who wanted him to get well.
No. I do not disapprove of capital punishment. I think if one takes a life by murder, not in self defense,that person’s life can be taken by law.
More like walking along the edge of a cliff with a stiff breeze blowing.
As Robert Avrech remarked 5 years ago the “masks are coming
off” including the fiction of “personal autonomy” and
of designation of one’s “substitute decision maker”. The
fate of Joshua Kulendran Mayandy has been horribly under
and mis-reported.
I certainly concur with your position.
Unfortunately, the left wants the power to kill at their discretion while trying to sell it as individual choice.
Look at the ogreish practices in the UK and Canada (denying food and essential treatments). They cannot yet kill outright so they make do with the tools at hand.
If you allow euthanasia you've let them get their foot in the door.
Through His prophets, God told us when capital punishment is appropriate. However, I've never seen any scripture prescribing killing the old or infirm.
Who has?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
