Posted on 06/21/2012 3:42:44 PM PDT by wagglebee
Tony Nicklinson is 58 and paralysed from the neck down after suffering a stroke in 2005. He is seeking legal permission for a doctor actively to end his life.
A Channel 4 Dispatches programme this week, ‘Let our dad die’, put Tony’s case with powerful emotion but it did not tell us that most people with locked-in syndrome do not actually think like this man.
No one can help but be sympathetic to Tony Nicklinson, but cases like his are extremely rare and hard cases make bad law.
The overwhelming majority of people with severe disability - even with ‘locked-in syndrome’ - do not wish to die, but rather want support to live and the longer people have locked-in syndrome then generally the better they learn to cope with it and find meaning, purpose and contentment within the confines of the condition.
‘Locked in, but still lost in music: UK’s bravest DJ’ tells the story of Bram Harrison, 34, who suffered brain damage two weeks before his 21st birthday after falling head-first off his bicycle. He was left with locked-in syndrome and can move only his eyes and eye lids.
So he communicates with his eyes: looking up means yes, down means no, cross-eyed means don’t know. He chooses letters and words by blinking at them on a screen, which his computer translates into the written and spoken word.
This allows him to easily respond to questions from his small army of committed carers about what he wants and how he feels and also to work as a DJ.
Not surprisingly the playlist for his Eye Life radio show takes weeks to put together but he still does it!
Martin Pistorius is a South African man who ended up paralysed and comatose following a throat infection at the age of 12. His awareness began to improve four years later and by the age of 19 had fully returned.
However it was a further five years before a therapist noticed that he was trying to communicate. The penny eventually dropped that he had been aware of everything going on around him for almost ten years whilst everybody had assumed he was unconscious.
Now, ten years later, aged 36, he is married and runs a computer business despite being still in a wheel chair with limited limb movement and using computerised speech.
His autobiography,‘Ghost Boy’ tells the story.
Nikki Kenward was left disabled after a partial recovery from paralysis caused by Gullain Barre syndrome. Her own inspiring personal story is well worth a read. Now she campaigns telling people about the dangers that changing the law to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia would pose to those with serious disability.
Then there is Graham Miles, the pensioner who told how he beat ‘locked in syndrome’ after suffering a massive stroke.
But perhaps the most famous of all is Jean-Dominique Bauby, the French editor of Elle magazine, who suffered a severe stroke, from which he never recovered, and yet wrote the autobiographical ‘Diving Bell and the Butterfly’ which was ‘dictated’ letter by letter and has been made into a major feature film.
Most people with locked-in syndrome are happy, according to the biggest survey of people with the condition.
The desire to die is not primarily about physical symptoms but about the particular person and their ability to adapt to living with a profound disability.
Much as we sympathise with Tony Nicklinson, we should not, as RCGP President Iona Heath argued recently, be seeking technical solutions like euthanasia to what is in reality an existential problem.
That would be a very dangerous precedent indeed.
Reprinted with permission from Dr. Saunders’ blog.
The culture of death ALWAYS uses the most extreme examples possible to push their agenda.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
All due respect, but my decision to live or die is MY decision. It is not for you or anyone else to make that decision. Some group saying I have to continue to suffer when I just want to go is just as bad as the UK system where they admit to killing some 130,000 elderly.
You may argue, cajole, plead, whatever, for me to accept your belief, but you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tell me how or when to die.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. We all know that the government should be in charge of our lives, every second of it. Uh, heck, wait a minute...
But seriously, I believe what you’re looking for is something called intellectual consistency, rather than the typical “get the government out of our lives unless we happen to disagree with the decisions that some individuals make in which case you’re damn right the government should be in control so people do what I want them to do” mindset.
Good luck with that.
Where does this supposed "right to die" come from? The right to life DOES NOT included a right to die.
Father Frank Pavone: Freedom to Die?For a Christian, however, is "my life" really "mine"? Is my death really mine? The answer has to be yes and no. It is mine in the sense that it has been given to me and nobody else; it is not mine alone, however, because I am not the source of my own existence, and I am accountable for it to another, namely, God. "You are not your own," St. Paul declares (1 Cor. 6:19). "If we live, we are responsible to the Lord, and when we die we are responsible to the Lord. Both in life and in death we belong to the Lord." ( See Romans 14:18). Not one of us decided the time or manner in which we came into this world. Our life is a sacred gift from God, and only He can give it. It is therefore His right alone to take us out of this world.
We do not possess a "right to die." A right is a moral claim. We do not have a claim on death; rather, death has a claim on us! Some see the "right to die" as parallel to the "right to life." In fact, however, they are opposite. The "right to life" is based on the fact that life is a gift which we do not possess as a piece of property ( which we can purchase or sell or give away or destroy at will ), but rather is an inviolable right. It cannot be taken away by another or by the person him/herself. The "right to die" is based, rather, on the idea of life as a "thing we possess" and may discard when it no longer meets our satisfaction. "Right to die" thinking says there is such a thing as a "life not worth living." For a Christian, however, life is worthy in and of itself, and not because it meets certain criteria that we or others set.
>>You may argue, cajole, plead, whatever, for me to accept your belief, but you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tell me how or when to die.<<
Prepare for:
“How long until the right to die becomes the obligation to die?”
Slippery slope arguments don’t have much meaning to me and are a logical fallacy.
I agree that the decision to end one’s life (or prolong it in the face of adversity) is the most personal decision one can make and The State (and worse, busybodies) have no business sticking its (their) nose in it.
It is between me and my God.
What you DO NOT have the right to do is compel the greater society to be complicit and to help procure your death.
What I never understood about the pro euthanasia position is that no one prevents you from killing yourself. Buy a gun, jump off a bridge, step in front of an on coming train, buy some rat poison, stock up on pain killers. Just don't make your doctor provide you with the means to your own destruction and don't expect the rest of society to accept and cheer your cowardice.
Man up already!
The acceptance of Abortion on demand, euthanasia leads directly to the forced killing of those found ‘lacking’ or ‘undeserving’ of life by the greater society.
Your argument is simply that if one is a Catholic one must adhere to different rules regarding life. And it is a LOT more complex than a snippet from a single non-authoratative opinion.
That is a great theological argument for Christians, but is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>>What you DO NOT have the right to do is compel the greater society to be complicit and to help procure your death.<<
Well, that isn’t really being discussed here. I didn’t see rstrahan (nor have I) ask society or anyone else to assist in personal demise. Should doctors whose conscience is clear in providing assistance for such an act (not subsidized by insurance or Medicare) decide to do so, there should be no impediments, either.
And as of this moment, attempted suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions (FWIU).
That is a great theological argument for Christians, but is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Yes, I'm well aware that you are a longtime devotee of the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement, but can you really explain where these "rights" come from? Do you think your opinions and desires are "rights"?
Where do YOU think YOUR right to life comes from? If it does not come from God, then the only logical alternative is the government.
Again, where does YOUR "right to death" come from? Do you think that your ABILITY to end your own life is somehow a "right"?
>>Yes, I’m well aware that you are a longtime devotee of the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement<<
Knowingly misstating my position is not only disingenuous but is quite immoral. I have always said that a person’s decision to live or die is between the person and his/her God. That is not euthanasia.
>>Yes, I’m well aware that you are a longtime devotee of the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement, but can you really explain where these “rights” come from? Do you think your opinions and desires are “rights”?<<
The 9th and 10th Amendments.
>>Where do YOU think YOUR right to life comes from? If it does not come from God, then the only logical alternative is the government.<<
I have always said the decision is between the individual and his/her God. Not the Catholic interpretation of God’s will. Not any particular interpretation of God’s will. Not Waglebee’s interpretation of God’s will. Between the individual and his/her interpretation of God’s will.
>>Again, where does YOUR “right to death” come from? Do you think that your ABILITY to end your own life is somehow a “right”?<<
Again the 9th and 10th Amendments. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It will do you good. (while you are at it go back and read my posts on this subject so you don’t purposely misinterpret me again).
I believe in the right to die, I suppose. If I have the right to self-defense, then it must go the other way, too. Suicide is a sin, not a crime.
What’s wrong with the “right to die” movement is that they pull other people into it. We switch from upside-down self-defense, now, to the right of association and voluntary contract. But the state has the prerogative to outlaw certain sorts of contract according to police powers, and euthanasia falls within that ambit. It’s not suicide if someone kills you.
Life is precious, no matter the circumstance. My sister-in-law had three bouts of brain cancer before their was nothing else the doctors could do. The day before she died, she was unable to speak or move. My wife and I brought our two children, then 11 and 8, to her bedside to say our farewells. At first, the kids were hesitant to go but they realized that their aunt would appreciate them seeing her. They never thought that they would be shown just how much and that they would never forget the expression of thanks that beamed from her eyes as she saw them. All she had left was her eyes, and the heartfelt appreciation she could express through them. My kids are both grown now and they have never forgotten that visit.
“You may argue, cajole, plead, whatever, for me to accept your belief, but you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tell me how or when to die”
They would be telling you how or when you can’t die, but I see the point. I wouldn’t want anyone to stop you from visiting your local bridges and tall buildings. What I do have the right to tell you, being part of the body politic, is that you don’t get other people to help you. That’s as far as I go.
That is about sin, not crime. The two are different. I have autonomy over myself as reagrds the state, if not God.
Where do YOU think YOUR right to life comes from? If it does not come from God, then the only logical alternative is the government.
Again, where does YOUR "right to death" come from? Do you think that your ABILITY to end your own life is somehow a "right"?
************************************
Interesting questions. At the very least, no one has the "right" to expect or demand that someone else be a party in their death. Not only is it morally wrong, it places the other person in, not only legal jeopardy, but may also result in depression, despair and overwhelming guilt. No one has the "right" to do that to another human being.
****************************
Then why do you keep talking about it?
” The 9th and 10th Amendments”
No, the rights do not derive therefrom. They merely remind the government that certain undefined rights do exist and are reserved.
>>Then why do you keep talking about it?<<
Because there are those who would try to take that from me. And you. And every individual.
>>No, the rights do not derive therefrom. They merely remind the government that certain undefined rights do exist and are reserved.<<
Well, there is no instantiated “right to death.” Therefore it is a reserved right. “Shall not be disparaged” means something.
Rights are never “derived.” They are preserved.
Kind of hard to do when, like the guy in the article, you are totally paralyzed.
No one can stop you from killing yourself if that’s what you choose to do. There’s no way that a person can’t do almost anything that they really want to do. What defines us is not what we can do, but what we choose to do.
>> What I do have the right to tell you, being part of the body politic, is that you don’t get other people to help you. That’s as far as I go.<<
Why does that strawman keep getting trotted out? No one has suggested that society or any other person should be compelled to assist in suicide? The closest is when I said a doctor could do so if he/she decides to do so in good conscience.
My sister just had a stroke last month. She is now in rehab and looking forward to returning home on July 17th. No institution for her — she will continue the rehab in her own home.
**All due respect, but my decision to live or die is MY decision**
What you are saying sounds selfish to me. Live in God’s will, not yours.
“Well, there is no instantiated ‘right to death.’ Therefore it is a reserved right.”
If it is a right. Which I think it is, but the amendments don’t help us on the matter. Except to say that if the right does exist it is reserved, but that’s not at issue.
“’Shall not be disparaged’ means something.”
It’s “shall not be construed to disparage.” The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage the existence of other rights, that is. And I know.
“Rights are never ‘derived.’ They are preserved.”
Someone asked you where rights come from, and you answered the 9th and 10th amendments. That makes no sense, is all I was saying. Now you say they derive from nowhere. Do our rights come ex nihilo? Are they always there, and that’s just how it is? Used to be they said they come from God or nature. Then they were compromises of the law’s social evolution, or they exist because we’ve decided they’re useful. Nowadays with the popularity of the term “human rights” they come from our humanness, or whatever.
I can’t conceive of them being “preserved,” or existing at all, without coming from somewhere. But you can respond to the question of where our rights come from by saying “Nowhere; they just are,” instead of the inapt 9th and 10th amendments answer.
“All due respect, but my decision to live or die is MY decision.”
—
I’m with you. I’m elderly and my family and doctor know exactly how I feel about it. It’s all in writing.
.
I’m sorry, Salvation. I’m glad to hear that she’s in rehab and doing well enough to return home next month.
Did your family and doctor promise to help you die? In writing?
“Why does that strawman keep getting trotted out? No one has suggested that society or any other person should be compelled to assist in suicide?”
You can’t be unaware that that’s what the “right to die” movement is mostly about. It wouldn’t be such a hot issue if it was all about saving money by not sending cops to stop suicide attempts. Even though there are laws against suicide, most deniers of the right to kill yourself figure they can’t stop people if they’re mind’s set on it. So they don’t waste their time arguing about it, except perhaps as an intellectual exercise. Which is what we’re doing here, really, but the only reason I care to respond is that there is a real life group pushing for real life murder (so long as the murderee consents).
Maybe no one on this thread said there’s a right to assisted suicide, but I don’t care. If FR didn’t include arguing with people who aren’t here, about 5% of posts would remain.
“The closest is when I said a doctor could do so if he/she decides to do so in good conscience.”
I don’t care, again, whether or not you made the argument. I can argue against it if I want without regard to you. Imagine if, for instance, you said “I’m against handgun bans” and I said “I’m all for handgun ownership, but I don’t think private individuals should own tanks or surface to air missles.” Would it matter that you hadn’t defended the private ownership of tanks? No. I can make the point regardless.
“Why does that strawman keep getting trotted out?”
By the way, in case I wasn’t clear enough, just because something doesn’t apply to you, in particular, does not mean it is a strawman. It just doesn’t apply to you, is all. There is a movement out there to legalize euthanasia, and it goes under the banner of “right to die.” You must be aware of its existence.
*******************************
Then why did you respond to this thread at all? None of these examples apply to your contentions at all, since they are unable to take their own lives.
It is you who have raised the "straw man".
rstrahan, you already have a right to die. What you don’t have is the right to have someone else kill you.
We don’t want it to be legal to have someone else kill us. The potential for abuse in these situations is insane.
**********************************
Agreed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz Here is the reason why every life is precious. Without this man our lives would not be the same,nowadays he would be aborted.
Killing one’s self is just as much murder as killing another. Nobody has a right to murder another. The government may make it *legal* in that there’s no penalty for it, but the murderer still has to answer to God for it, if not in this life, in the next.
The error in thinking has become that WE have the *right* to do with our lives because they’re *our* lives.
But they’re not *our* lives. They belong to God. That error in thinking comes from the rejection of God by mankind.
Sure it is. We recognize liberaltarianspeak when we see it.
Sure it is. We recognize liberaltarianspeak when we see it.
That's the EXACT kind of argument pro-choice libertarians use to support abortion and homosexual marriage.
I endorse your position in post 4. If I were the victim of locked-in syndrome I know for a fact that I would want death. Living like that is a living hell, in my opinion.
**************************************
I understand, I think, how you feel. I am extremely claustrophobic.
However, the will to live and enjoy life is strong. As far as we know, this is our only opportunity for life. It may surprise many of us to know how sweet life may seem when we are facing its end. Even beyond what we may imagine now.
Yea, tell that to someone in constant unimaginable pain who gets force-fed through a tube, can't control a wheelchair and can't even dream because of all the drugs.
If it happens to me, I hope there will be someone man enough to help end my suffering quietly, painlessly and cleanly. Being useless and constantly suffering with no hope of improving is far, far more frightening to me than death.
I'm man enough to do it myself but it's physically IMPOSSIBLE if you are that disabled. If I needed help and could prove my intent to die, I wouldn't want that person prosecuted.
Nicely stated, trisham, but I don’t think that I would change my mind. I will live my life under my conditions and those only.
I have even taken the trouble to outline with the help of the family attorney the conditions under which I would choose to not live. They are written in a legal document which the person holding my medical power-of-attorney can take to a court and have upheld. Any hospital personnel who refuse can be sued; if they don’t follow my wishes they will be held in contempt of court—that always gets someone’s attention.
In other words, nourishment of any sort would be withheld until my death. Gruesome (even to me) but preferable to living under intolerable conditions.
We as a Christian Culture must do everything we can to keep people alive, no matter their condition, no matter their desire, no matter the costs.
And those who would elect otherwise should be protected from their own desire to die, even if it means criminal prosecution.
No matter the costs? Who is going to pay for it if the family cannot? Or should the family just be debt for generations until they have paid back the costs to the hospital?
That is basically the same argument for abortion ion demand. How well do you think that is helping our society?
The irony is that nobody can stop most crimes that are committed.
If I'm driving down the street and decide to run down a pedestrian in the road, there's little that can be done to stop me. I could even adopt the libertine attitude that this is a decision "between me and my God," BUT THIS ABILITY IS NOT A RIGHT.
The libertines seem unable to grasp the fact that abilities and desires are not rights.
>>That is basically the same argument for abortion ion demand. How well do you think that is helping our society?<<
It is not. The aborted child has no say. An adult who wishes to end his/her life can make that decision.
I expect strawmen from liberals, not fellow conservatives.
An adult who wishes to end his/her life can make that decision.
So, you would propose ban those with any form of dementia or other mental disabilities from euthanasia/assisted suicide?
Now, I presume that you think that a person should be able to put this in an advanced medical directive; however, such directives ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY of a person changing their mind. This is quite different than a DNR, this is talking about taking deliberate steps to end life.
*********************************
Agreed.
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.